it very difficult to prove.Evidentiary rules also allowed a conviction to be overturned. Corroboration of the victims testimony was a requirement in cases of simple rape. Some court required that every detail of the womans statement be corroborated. This requirement grew out of the belief that women are inherently incredible. In simple rape, The inherently incredible standard, clearly rooted in Hales distrust, made corroboration most important precisely in the cases where resistance was most likely do be demanded,(Estrich 44) making the simple rape almost impossible to prove, due to the two stringent requirements of corroboration and adequate force. Since there are rarely witnesses to a rape, if corroboration of every element, including nonconsent, is required, it almost inevitably must consist of the bruises and torn clothing that physical resistance would produce.(Estrich 47) The corroboration requirement protected the defendant and focused on the womans responsibility. If the case amounted to a confrontation of conflicting accounts the corroboration requirement is an attempt to skew resolution of such disputes in favor of the defendant.(Estrich 46)In cases of simple rape, inquiries into the sexual history of the woman shed a more favorable light on the defendant as well. It has been shown that the rape of an experienced woman is not seen to be as serious as that of a chaste woman. Courts are aware of the prejudice that may develop due to evidence of sexual history, but it is only the past of the man that the court protects. In addition, a prior relationship between the victim and the defendant almost routinely downgrades the gravity of the assault.Another requirement exclusive to rape is that, a failure of the assaulted party to make complaint recently after the occurrence, opportunity offering itself, will cast a suspicion on the bona fides of the charge.(Estrich 53) This rule explicitly implies that women frequently ch...
