Sarfraz v. Smith

by
Sarfraz was convicted of sexually assaulting I.N., an immigrant who, with her father, briefly lived with Sarfraz after arriving in this country. I.N. testified that Sarfraz forced his way into her apartment, strangled her, threatened her with a knife, and raped her. Abundant physical evidence corroborated her account. Sarfraz claimed that I.N. consented to sexual intercourse and sought to introduce evidence that he and I.N. had engaged in consensual sexual contact while she was living with him. The judge excluded the evidence under Wisconsin’s rape-shield law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the state’s interest in excluding the evidence outweighed Sarfraz’s interest in admitting it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Sarfraz’s federal habeas petition. The state supreme court noted but did not separately analyze Sarfraz’s federal constitutional claims so the Richter presumption required treatment of its decision as an adjudication on the merits and required deferential review. That decision did not involve an unreasonable application of federal law. The Supreme Court has held that the application of evidentiary rules limiting a defendant’s right to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence may not be disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s balancing of interests was not an unreasonable application of that standard, particularly in light of the slim marginal value of the excluded evidence. View "Sarfraz v. Smith" on Justia Law