Forms of permissible witness rehabilitation after impeachment of witness by attack on memory

United States v. Withorn, 204 F.3d 790, 795 (8th Cir. 2000) (conviction for sexual abuse, including aggravated sexual abuse; accused argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his past sexual assault while excluding evidence that victim had falsely accused another man of raping her;...Rape shield laws limit the introduction in trials involving charges or claims of sexual assault or sexual misconduct, of evidence of the sexual disposition or other sexual conduct of an alleged victim of a sexual assault or sexual misconduct.

Doe v. Smith, 470 F.3d 331, 342 (7th Cir. 2006) (remanding for new trial in a molestation suit because the district court erred in excluding evidence of defendant's 2001 conviction for solicitation of a child where defendant's solicitous conduct "constituted an attempt to commit a sexual offense against a...Federal Rule of Evidence 413(d) provides that for purposes of Rule 413 and also for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 415 an "offense of sexual assault" is a crime under Federal law or the law of a State (as defined in section 513 of title 18, United States Code) that involved-- (1) any conduct proscribed by chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code; (2) contact, without consent, between any part of the defendant's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; (3) contact, without consent, between the genitals or anus of the defendant and any part of another person's body; (4) deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from the infliction of death, bodily injury, or physical pain on another person; or (5) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in paragraphs (1)-(4).

United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548, 563-565 (6th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed Officer Topping's testimony [about Duckett's statement during the stop] as an excited utterance because (1)....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.