Redmond v. Kingston

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001 · Evidence

240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseCross-examinationRape-shield evidencehabeas corpus28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)motive to fabricatebias

Facts

Redmond was convicted of trading cocaine to a 15-year-old resident, Heather, for sex, and the state acknowledged that the principal evidence was Heather's testimony plus another resident's repetition of what Heather had said. Eleven months earlier, Heather had falsely claimed she was forcibly raped, repeated that story to her mother, a nurse, and a police officer, and later admitted she had fabricated it to get her mother's attention. Redmond sought to cross-examine Heather about that false accusation to show a motive to falsely accuse him, but the trial court excluded the evidence and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed under the state's rape-shield and prejudice-balancing rules. Other impeachment evidence existed, such as Heather's drug use, theft, running away, school skipping, and past lies.

Issue

Whether the state courts unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court Confrontation Clause doctrine by barring cross-examination of the complainant about a prior false rape accusation offered to show her motive to fabricate the accusation against Redmond.

Rule

A criminal defendant's confrontation right is infringed when a court applies ordinary prejudice-balancing principles to exclude cross-examination evidence that is highly probative, noncumulative, nonconfusing, and nonprejudicial, where that evidence is vital to the central issue and is offered to show a prosecution witness's motive or bias to fabricate rather than merely general bad character for truthfulness. A prior false rape accusation is not itself sexual conduct within the meaning of the rape-shield statute.

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 sexual-assault prosecution in Milwaukee, the state’s case depends almost entirely on the complainant, Tasha Morgan. The defense has evidence that eight months earlier Tasha admitted inventing a robbery-and-assault story to draw sympathy from her older sister after they had argued, and the defense seeks to cross-examine her about that prior fabrication to show a motive to make dramatic victim claims for attention.

If the trial judge excludes the cross-examination on the ground that it only shows Tasha is a dishonest person, what is the strongest argument that the exclusion violates the defendant’s confrontation right?

Explanation. The majority drew a sharp distinction between evidence offered merely to show that a witness lies generally and evidence offered to show motive or bias to fabricate the present accusation. When the earlier fabrication tends to show a concrete motive for making a similar victim claim and the complainant’s credibility is central, exclusion may violate confrontation. The Constitution does not require admission of every prior lie, but it strongly protects cross-examination directed to motive or bias.