NIMJ filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Medina arguing that Article 120(c)(2) is facially unconstitutional because it shifts the burden of proof on an element of the offense of aggravated sexual assault to the accused. By placing the burden of proving consent on the accused, he must prove that the complainant was substantially capable of verbally, physically, or otherwise manifesting her unwillingness to engage in the sexual activity. That is the constitutional deficiency NIMJ highlighted in the brief. The amicus can be read here.

Comments are closed.