Corroboration, Consent, and Credibility in Sexual Violence Prosecutions: Evidentiary Barriers and Opportunities for Criminal Justice Reform
Keywords:
sexual violence, rape prosecution, corroboration, consent, credibility, rape myths, evidentiary reform, prosecutorial decision-making, attritionAbstract
Background: Sexual violence prosecutions often turn on evidentiary questions that are formally distinct but practically intertwined: whether independent corroboration exists, how consent is legally and factually evaluated, and whether the complainant is treated as credible. Attrition research shows that these questions can be contaminated by expectations about resistance, prompt reporting, consistency, intoxication, relationship status, demeanour, and the availability of forensic evidence.
Objectives: This review examines how corroboration, consent, and credibility shape criminal-justice decision-making; identifies recurring evidentiary barriers across investigation, charging, and trial; compares selected legal reforms; and develops an auditable framework for reform that preserves the presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Methods: A structured evidence review integrated 28 peer-reviewed empirical and synthesis studies published through 2024 with comparative doctrinal analysis of England and Wales, Canada, Scotland, and New South Wales, Australia. Evidence was coded across corroboration, consent, credibility, downstream jury anticipation, victim engagement, and procedural safeguards.
Results: Formal abolition of corroboration requirements does not eliminate “shadow corroboration”: decision-makers may continue to treat forensic or third-party evidence as an informal authenticity threshold. DNA and medical-forensic evidence can materially strengthen cases, but their probative value is issue-specific and may be limited when identity or sexual contact is not disputed. Consent reforms increasingly emphasize free agreement, communication, and reasonable steps, yet empirical trial research shows persistent force-and-resistance narratives. Credibility remains a central gatekeeping construct; delayed reporting, inconsistencies, alcohol use, prior conduct, emotional presentation, and anticipated juror reactions repeatedly influence case advancement. Recent prosecution studies indicate that even when trained investigators reduce direct reliance on rape myths, prosecutors may reproduce them indirectly through “ideal case” and convictability assessments.
Conclusion: The review proposes the Corroboration-Consent-Credibility Evidence Integrity Framework (C3-EIF), which separates issue-specific evidentiary sufficiency from stereotype-prone heuristics and embeds suspect-centred investigation, rape-shield discipline, trauma-informed interviewing, reasoned charging decisions, and structured review. Reform should improve the quality and transparency of evidence assessment, not lower the criminal standard of proof.
References
1. Spohn C, Beichner D, Davis-Frenzel E. Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.”. Social Problems. 2001;48(2):206-235. doi:10.1525/sp.2001.48.2.206
2. Spohn C, Holleran D. Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly. 2001;18(3):651-688. doi:10.1080/07418820100095051
3. Beichner D, Spohn C. Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2005;16(4):461-498. doi:10.1177/0887403405277195
4. Alderden MA, Ullman SE. Creating a more complete and current picture: Examining police and prosecutor decision-making when processing sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women. 2012;18(5):525-551. doi:10.1177/1077801212453867
5. Beichner D, Spohn C. Modeling the effects of victim behavior and moral character on prosecutors' charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Violence and Victims. 2012;27(1):3-24. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.3
6. Tasca M, Rodriguez N, Spohn C, Koss MP. Police decision making in sexual assault cases: Predictors of suspect identification and arrest. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2013;28(6):1157-1177. doi:10.1177/0886260512468233
7. Campbell R, Patterson D, Bybee D, Dworkin ER. Predicting sexual assault prosecution outcomes: The role of medical forensic evidence collected by sexual assault nurse examiners. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2009;36(7):712-727. doi:10.1177/0093854809335054
8. Henry TKS, Jurek AL. Identification, corroboration, and charging: Examining the use of DNA evidence by prosecutors in sexual assault cases. Feminist Criminology. 2020;15(5):634-658. doi:10.1177/1557085120940795
9. Yu L, Walsh K, Zweig JM. The link between the sexual assault medical forensic examination and police perceptions of victim credibility. Feminist Criminology. 2022;17(1):26-49. doi:10.1177/15570851211012468
10. Finch E, Munro VE. Juror stereotypes and blame attribution in rape cases involving intoxicants: The findings of a pilot study. British Journal of Criminology. 2005;45(1):25-38. doi:10.1093/bjc/azh055
11. Ellison L, Munro VE. Reacting to rape: Exploring mock jurors' assessments of complainant credibility. British Journal of Criminology. 2009;49(2):202-219. doi:10.1093/bjc/azn077
12. Temkin J, Gray JM, Barrett J. Different functions of rape myth use in court: Findings from a trial observation study. Feminist Criminology. 2018;13(2):205-226. doi:10.1177/1557085116661627
13. Burgin R. Persistent narratives of force and resistance: Affirmative consent as law reform. British Journal of Criminology. 2019;59(2):296-314. doi:10.1093/bjc/azy043
14. Dinos S, Burrowes N, Hammond K, Cunliffe C. A systematic review of juries' assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. 2015;43(1):36-49. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.001
15. Leverick F. What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making? International Journal of Evidence & Proof. 2020;24(3):255-279. doi:10.1177/1365712720923157
16. Ropp JW, Lee JG, King LL, Growette Bostaph LM. A prosecutor's “ideal” sexual assault case: A mixed-method approach to understanding sexual assault case processing. Criminology. 2024;62(4):704-738. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12386
17. Lapsey DS, Campbell BA, Benitez I. Focal concerns theory and case advancement in sexual assault cases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2023;86:102032. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102032
18. Dowds E. Redefining consent: Rape law reform, reasonable belief, and communicative responsibility. Journal of Law and Society. 2022;49(4):824-847. doi:10.1111/jols.12395
19. Parsons J, Mojtahedi D. Can jurors be biased in their evaluation of third-party evidence within cases of rape? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2022;85:101837. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101837
20. Fansher AK, Welsh B. A decade of decision making: Prosecutorial decision making in sexual assault cases. Social Sciences. 2023;12(6):348. doi:10.3390/socsci12060348
21. Hohl K, Stanko EA. Complaints of rape and the criminal justice system: Fresh evidence on the attrition problem in England and Wales. European Journal of Criminology. 2015;12(3):324-341. doi:10.1177/1477370815571949
22. Campbell BA, Menaker TA, King WR. The determination of victim credibility by adult and juvenile sexual assault investigators. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2015;43(1):29-39. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.12.001
23. Lovell R, Klingenstein J, Du J, Overman L, Sabo D, Ye Y et al. Using machine learning to assess rape reports: Sentiment analysis detection of officers' “signaling” about victims' credibility. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2023;88:102106. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102106
24. O’Neal EN, Tellis K, Spohn C. Prosecuting intimate partner sexual assault: Legal and extra-legal factors that influence charging decisions. Violence Against Women. 2015;21(10):1237-1258.
25. Pattavina A, Morabito MS, Williams LM. Examining connections between the police and prosecution in sexual assault case processing: Does the use of exceptional clearance facilitate a downstream orientation? Victims & Offenders. 2016;11(2):315-334. doi:10.1080/15564886.2015.1046622
26. Morabito MS, Pattavina A, Williams LM. “It all just piles up”: Challenges to victim credibility accumulate to influence sexual assault case processing. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2019;34(15):3151-3170. doi:10.1177/0886260516669164
27. Wentz EA. Funneled through or filtered out: An examination of police and prosecutorial decision-making in adult sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women. 2020;26(15-16):1919-1940. doi:10.1177/1077801219890419
28. Brewis B, Jackson A. Sexual behaviour evidence and evidence of bad character in sexual offence proceedings: Proposing a combined admissibility framework. Journal of Criminal Law. 2020;84(1). doi:10.1177/0022018319891260
29. CEDAW Committee. General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19. United Nations; 2017.
30. Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (Canada), ss. 273.1, 273.2, 274, 276.
31. Ellison L, Munro VE. Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials. British Journal of Criminology. 2009;49(3):363-383. doi:10.1093/bjc/azp013
32. Frohmann L. Convictability and discordant locales: Reproducing race, class, and gender ideologies in prosecutorial decisionmaking. Law & Society Review. 1997;31(3):531-556. doi:10.2307/3054045
33. Judicial Institute for Scotland. Jury Manual: Corroboration generally (updated 4 December 2024). Judiciary of Scotland. 2024.
34. Lovell R, Klingenstein J, Du J, Overman L, Sabo D, Ye Y et al. Using machine learning to assess rape reports: “Signaling” words about victims' credibility that predict investigative and prosecutorial outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2023;88:102107. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102107
35. New South Wales Law Reform Commission. Consent in relation to sexual offences (Report 148). NSWLRC. 2020.
36. R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33 (Canada).
37. R v Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330 (Canada).
38. Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK), c. 42, ss. 74-76.
39. Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9).
40. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (UK), c. 23, s. 41.
41. Council of Europe. Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), CETS No. 210, art. 36. 2011.
42. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Consent Reforms) Act 2021 (NSW).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Integrated Sciences (JMRIS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright in their published work. Unless an individual Version of Record identifies different terms, JMRIS articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This permits sharing and adaptation, including commercial use, with appropriate attribution, a link to the license, and indication of changes. Third-party material may be subject to separate terms. Existing articles retain the license originally granted to their Version of Record; a policy update does not retrospectively replace that license.
