Ground ball to the right side.
Sixth Amendment:
" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
(public, i.e., open to the public, which has always and everywhere been taken to include the press, cf. First Amendment)
... to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
(i.e., the defendant at his or her PUBLIC TRIAL must be able to find from among the general population witnesses who may have information favorable to his defense, this is impossible without the name of his or her accuser being public).
"Rape shield" laws are facially unconstitutional, since they eliminate the protection that Amendment VI offers the defendant.
Right to the second baseman, turns and flips to first. One away! Rape shield laws do not infringe upon Sixth Amendment protections at all. They only make it more difficult for the press and the public to know information pertaining to the accuser. The defense is given that information.
"Rape shield" laws are facially unconstitutional, since they eliminate the protection that Amendment VI offers the defendant.
Strike out! Two up, two down! Not at all. Constitutionality has been repeatedly upheld in most circumstances. At no time is the accuser shielded from knowing whom his accuser is, where his accuser lives, etc. Defense lawyers are free to investigate her fully and to petition to court for exceptions.
Wanna send in a pinch-hitter?