Olden v. Kentucky

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Evidence

488 U.S. 227 (1988)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencerape shieldconfrontationSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausecross-examinationbias impeachmentmotive to lie

Facts

Petitioner's defense was that the complainant consented to sexual activity and then falsely claimed rape to protect her relationship with Bill Russell after Russell saw her get out of Harris' car. At trial, the complainant and Russell were living together, having separated from their spouses, but the trial court granted a motion in limine excluding all evidence of that living arrangement and sustained an objection when defense counsel tried to cross-examine the complainant about it. The Kentucky Court of Appeals acknowledged that the evidence was relevant and not barred by the state rape shield law, but held it properly excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the possibility of prejudice stemming from the interracial relationship. The complainant's testimony was central to the prosecution, and Russell's testimony largely repeated her account.

Issue

Whether the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause by preventing petitioner from cross-examining the complainant about her cohabitation with Russell to show a motive to fabricate the rape accusation. If so, whether that constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rule

The Confrontation Clause includes the right to conduct reasonable cross-examination to expose a witness's bias or motive to lie. Although trial judges may impose reasonable limits to prevent harassment, prejudice, confusion, safety risks, repetition, or inquiry that is only marginally relevant, they may not exclude otherwise appropriate cross-examination that has strong potential to reveal a prototypical form of bias; such an error is subject to harmless-error review under Chapman, considering the Van Arsdall factors.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a robbery trial in Cleveland, the prosecution’s key witness, Nina Torres, testified that she saw Devin Cole commit the crime. Devin’s defense is that Nina falsely identified him after her fiancé, Aaron Pike, saw her leaving a nightclub with Devin and accused her of cheating. The trial judge bars any cross-examination about Nina’s ongoing engagement to Aaron because the judge thinks relationship evidence is too personal.

Was the limitation most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The Confrontation Clause protects reasonable cross-examination aimed at exposing a witness’s bias or motive to lie. When the excluded inquiry targets a prototypical form of bias and could lead jurors to assess reliability differently, the restriction is unconstitutional. The majority recognized that judges may impose reasonable limits, but not where the inquiry has strong impeachment value. Reversal is not automatic in every case because harmless-error review still applies.