Jordan v. WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INST., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6178

Background

Jordan, a prisoner, was convicted in Ohio state court of rape and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor arising from an incident in March 2005.
During trial, evidence included C.A.’s testimony about the alleged rape and Jordan’s denial that any sexual encounter occurred.
C.A.’s sexual history was questioned, raising rape-shield concerns; defense did not object to the challenged lines of questioning.
K.W. testified and was asked about C.A.’s sexual history; the prosecutor objected as rape shield, and the court sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard related questions.
Jordan appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court’s reliance on the rape-shield law and its handling of C.A.’s sexual history evidence.
Jordan later filed a federal habeas corpus petition arguing violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments related to confrontation and rape-shield applications, which the district court denied and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cross-examination limits under the rape-shield law violated the Confrontation Clause.	Jordan argues state limits on cross-examining K.W. regarding C.A.’s sexual history violated his confrontation rights.	State/Barker argues limits were permissible under rape-shield jurisprudence and balanced against interests in preventing collateral minitrials.	No violation; limits were within constitutional balancing and did not render trial fundamentally unfair.
Whether the State waived rape-shield protections by eliciting C.A.’s virginity testimony.	Jordan contends the State opened the door to cross-examining other witnesses about C.A.’s sexual history, waiving protections.	Court rejected waiver argument; state-wide balancing and preservation of protections remained proper.	Ohio court’s decision not to find waiver was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
Whether Jordan could impeach C.A. through K.W.’s testimony under rape-shield limits.	Jordan seeks to use K.W.’s cross-examination to challenge C.A.’s credibility via her sexual history.	Confrontation and rape-shield rules bar such impeachment; extrinsic proof via third-party witness is generally not required by the Constitution.	Not allowed; Farley/Harrington line supports exclusion where defendant had opportunity to examine victim directly and where extrinsic impeachment is limited.
Whether any error was Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	If error occurred, it was not harmless given potential prejudice to C.A.’s credibility.	Any error was harmless; the testimony was collateral and defense theory did not rely on this line of questioning.	No reversible error; the error, if any, had no substantial effect on the verdict under Brecht.

Key Cases Cited

Boggs v. Collins, 226 F.3d 728 (6th Cir.2000) (confrontation-clause limits and impeachment via cross-examination of credibility)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and cross-examination rights in confrontational context)
Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1985) (limits on cross-examination; meaningful opportunity remains)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (trial courts may impose limits on cross-examination balancing multiple interests)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (reasonable-departure standard for state courts; AEDPA "unreasonable application")
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (Supreme Court 2011) (harmless-error standard under AEDPA; fairminded jurists could disagree)
Farley v. Lafler, 193 F. App’x 543 (6th Cir.2006) (not entitle to impeach primary witness via third-party witness; limits on extrinsic impeachment)