Muhammad Sarfraz v. Judy P. Smith, 885 F.3d 1029

Background

Victim I.N., a Pakistani immigrant, briefly lived with defendant Muhammad Sarfraz in late 2009; they later moved to separate apartments.
On May 15, 2010, I.N. testified Sarfraz forced entry, strangled her, threatened her with a knife, and raped her; physical and forensic evidence (blood, knife, semen, injuries, eyewitness neighbor) corroborated her account.
Sarfraz was charged with second-degree sexual assault by use of a dangerous weapon and asserted consent as his defense.
To support consent, Sarfraz sought to introduce evidence of prior sexual contact (fondling and mutual masturbation) with I.N.; the trial court excluded the explicit sexual-detail evidence under Wisconsin’s rape‑shield statute but allowed testimony about a prior romantic relationship (hugging, kissing, being in bed together, watching porn, marriage plans).
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated it, applying an "inverted balancing" rape‑shield test and holding the excluded carnal details had minimal probative value and were properly excluded; the state high court did not separately analyze the federal constitutional claims.
On federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying Richter deference: the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because exclusion was proportionate given the minimal incremental probative value and the strong state interest in protecting complainants.

Issues

Issue	Sarfraz's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of prior sexual‑contact evidence under Wisconsin’s rape‑shield statute violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation/right to present a defense	Exclusion prevented him from presenting crucial evidence of prior consensual sexual contact supporting consent and cross‑examination	Rape‑shield statute validly excludes prior sexual history unless probative value outweighs prejudice; excluded details were marginal and prejudicial	Affirmed: exclusion did not unreasonably violate federal rights; state court balancing reasonable under § 2254(d) with Richter deference
Whether federal habeas review should apply deferential § 2254(d) standard (Richter presumption) when state court addressed statutory but not separately the federal constitutional claims	State court’s silence on the federal claims means no merits adjudication; deferential review should not apply	Richter/Johnson precedent presumes merits adjudication when state court decided related issues and showed awareness of federal claims	Affirmed: Richter presumption applies; Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed federal dimensions sufficiently to trigger § 2254(d) deference
Whether the excluded evidence had sufficient probative value to overcome the rape‑shield statute’s presumption against admission	The prior sexual acts were directly probative of consent and credibility on the charged conduct	The prior acts (fondling, mutual masturbation) were materially different from forcible intercourse during a violent incident and thus minimally probative, outweighed by prejudice	Affirmed: state court reasonably concluded the evidence’s probative value was minimal and outweighed by the statutory presumption of prejudice
Whether limiting the defense to non‑carnal relationship evidence was disproportionate to the aims of the rape‑shield rule	Exclusion of carnal details unconstitutionally limited ability to present a complete defense	Permitting non‑carnal romantic evidence but excluding explicit sexual details appropriately balanced defendant’s rights and victim‑protection interests	Affirmed: trial record shows substantial allowance of relationship evidence; incremental value of excluded details slight, so limitation proportionate

Key Cases Cited

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (presumption that state court adjudicated federal claim on the merits when it issues a reasoned decision)
Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (Richter presumption applies where state court addressed related state law and federal dimensions likely were considered)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (Confrontation/right to present witnesses can in some cases require admission of exculpatory evidence)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (cross‑examination rights protect impeachment of witness credibility)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (evidentiary rules that exclude defense evidence cannot be disproportionate to aims served)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (compulsory‑process/due process protections for defendant’s right to present a defense)
State v. Pulizzano, 456 N.W.2d 325 (Wisconsin precedent on rape‑shield and constitutional dimensions)
Dunlap v. Hepp, 436 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. upholding state balancing under rape‑shield against constitutional challenge)
Hammer v. Karlen, 342 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. similar affirmance that victim‑protection interest may justify exclusion under rape‑shield)