Government of the Virgin Islands v. Scuito
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
623 F.2d 869 (1980)
Louis Scuito (defendant) was charged with sexually assaulting a woman who worked as a waitress at a restaurant he frequently visited. One evening at the restaurant, Scuito gave the victim a ride home. Scuito took a detour down a beach road where the two had sexual intercourse. The only dispute was whether it was consensual. The victim testified that when she resisted Scuito’s advances he told her that he had a knife and would “throw her into the ocean if she did not cooperate.” Although she said she did not see a knife, she felt “something metal” cut into her neck. Thereafter, she stopped resisting and Scuito eventually took her home. Upon being dropped off at home, the victim kissed Scuito on the forehead because she said she was “praying for him.” At trial, there was medical testimony that the victim had a cut on the side of her neck where she said the knife was held. Scuito’s version of the events was very different. Scuito testified that on the way to the victim’s apartment they drove down the beach road to smoke marijuana. Scuito said the victim initially resisted his advances, but later changed her mind without a show of force or threats. Scuito’s first trial ended in a mistrial after the prosecutor indirectly referenced that Scuito previously had raped another woman after threatening to shoot her with a flare gun. The prosecutor had agreed not to mention the incident during a discussion between counsel and the court. Prior to the second trial, Scuito’s counsel moved to have the victim psychiatrically examined. Defense counsel submitted an affidavit where he represented that the victim often appeared “spaced out,” that she possibly used controlled substances and dressed in a provocative manner. Defense counsel’s motion was denied and Scuito was ultimately convicted of rape. Scuito appealed, arguing that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Scuito’s motion for a psychiatric examination of the victim.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Adams, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.