Judd v. Rodman
105 F.3d 1339 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a civil action for wrongful transmission of a sexually transmitted disease, evidence of the plaintiff's prior sexual history is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 if its probative value as to the source of the infection substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Lisa Beth Judd and professional basketball player Dennis Rodman engaged in a sexual relationship.
- Following the relationship, Judd was diagnosed with genital herpes.
- Judd had previously undergone breast augmentation surgery.
- At various times, Judd had been employed as a nude dancer.
- Expert testimony presented at trial established that the herpes virus can remain dormant and asymptomatic in an infected person for long periods.
- Judd alleged she suffered emotional distress from contracting the disease, testifying that she felt 'dirty'.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Beth Judd filed a complaint against Dennis Rodman in a federal district court (the trial court) for tortious transmission of a sexual disease, battery, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Before trial, Judd filed motions in limine to exclude evidence of her sexual history, nude dancing, and breast surgery under FRE 412 and 402.
- The trial judge denied the motions, stating that he believed Rule 412 did not apply and that he would rule on objections as they arose during trial.
- At trial, the court overruled Judd's objections to the evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Dennis Rodman.
- The district court entered a final judgment in Rodman's favor.
- Judd (as appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with Rodman as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 by admitting evidence of a plaintiff's prior sexual history, employment as a nude dancer, and breast augmentation surgery in a civil case alleging tortious transmission of genital herpes?
Opinions:
Majority - Birch, Circuit Judge
No. The admission of the challenged evidence does not constitute reversible error because the plaintiff failed to properly preserve her objection to some of the evidence, and for the properly preserved objections, the evidence's probative value substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. On the issue of breast augmentation surgery, Judd waived her Rule 412 objection by failing to state it as a specific ground at trial, objecting only on the basis of relevancy. Regarding her prior sexual history, Judd preserved the issue for appeal by making a motion in limine and then introducing the evidence herself as a matter of trial strategy. However, this evidence was highly probative of causation—a central issue in the case—because it was relevant to determining the source of her herpes infection. This high probative value substantially outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice under the Rule 412(b)(2) balancing test. Finally, evidence of her employment as a nude dancer was probative as to the extent of her emotional distress damages, as it suggested a lack of change in her body image after contracting the virus. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in a manner that affected Judd's substantial rights.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 412, a rape shield law, outside its traditional context of sexual assault and harassment. By analyzing its application in a tort case for STD transmission, the court signals that while the rule's protections may apply, they are not absolute. The decision establishes that when the source of an infection is a central element of a claim, the probative value of a plaintiff's sexual history is extremely high, making it more likely to be admitted. The opinion also serves as a crucial reminder of procedural preservation, reinforcing that a failure to make a specific and timely objection at trial can result in a waiver of that issue on appeal, even if a motion in limine was filed.
Unlock the full brief for Judd v. Rodman