I've just come across the most well-written case in the entire study of Evidence. This case is about what evidence of prior sexual conduct may be admitted in rape cases. Here's a couple quotes from it:
"Are we to be told...that the triers should be advised to make no distinction in their minds between the virgin and a tenant of the stew?--between one who would prefer death to pollution, and another who, incited by lust and lucre, daily offers her person to the indiscriminate embraces of the other sex?"
"Will you not more readily infer assent in the practiced Messalina, in loose attire, than in the reserved and virtuous Lucretia?"
"Does not [a] probable distinction arise between one who has already submitted herself to the lewd embraces of another, and the coy and modest female, severely chaste and instinctively shuddering at the thought of impurity?"
"Shall I be answered that an isolated instance of criminal connection does not make a common prostitute? I answer, yes; it only makes a prostitute."
If all cases were written like this, law school would be a lot more fun!
- I'm Feelin':amused