The sparks that flew when Nafissatou Diallo accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault quickly ignited into a political inferno. DNA evidence confirmed that a sexual encounter did indeed take place between Diallo and Straus-Kahn. However, the process of determining whether the incident was consensual had become a battle for credibility in and out of the courtroom; as with many cases of sexual assault, past events and questions of innocence are granted too much power over the case. Past events often eclipse the issues at hand and may unfairly challenge the credibility given to rape and sexual assault victims in the American justice system.

The case between them commenced in May of 2011 and was recently dismissed due to what were deemed insurmountable flaws in Diallo’s credibility. Interestingly, the initial stages of the lawsuit were marked by commendation of Diallo, a hard-working single mother, who was working as a maid in a New York City hotel. The 33 year old refugee was painted as an innocent and trustworthy victim of a powerful man’s licentiousness and devil-may-care attitude about sexual encounters.  However, as the case progressed, her image morphed from innocent victim into an unreliable storyteller whose accounts of the incident were questionable at best and outright fraudulent at worst. The dangerous accusation would both demolish the career of the promising candidate for French presidency and prompt his resignation as director of the International Monetary Fund.

Diallo’s integrity was damaged by her rather colorful past: Lying on her application for asylum in the United States, admitting the financial benefits of pursuing charges against Strauss-Kahn in a recorded phone call, and being linked to drug trade banished all hope of being taken seriously by the attorneys, the court, the media, and the general public.

Perhaps the most damning of all to Diallo’s image was her confession that she had fabricated a story of gang rape in order to escape her native Guinea for asylum in the United States. The defense’s argument follows that since she had been able to uphold a compelling tale of sexual assault in the past, she would be able to do the same in accusing Strauss-Kahn. This line of reasoning, more prejudicial than prohibitive, played a significant part in Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr.’s dismissal of the case.

Is it reasonable to assume that because she lied once about sexual assault, she must forever be presumed dishonest? And does it matter that her lies to obtain asylum were part of a desperate bid to better her circumstances? It would indeed be a failure of the American legal system if this woman were denied justice on account of past dishonesty. The prosecution was not given the opportunity to present their case in front of a jury.

Despite the ambiguity of the case, Diallo seems to have received less than her fair share of credence. Her lawyer, Kenneth P. Thompson, said by dismissing the case Attorney Vance had effectively “abandoned an innocent woman.” The dismissal of Diallo’s allegations against Strauss-Kahn and the failure to evaluate her testimony by a jury undercuts the serious nature of the accusation. This dismissal suggests that ambiguity in rape cases may lead to face-value judgments and character assassination. It is unacceptable to lose sight of justice and the right of alleged victims to seek retribution. The example provided by the Strauss-Kahn case illustrates that while the American legal system may be making progress towards just reception of rape victims, it still has a long way to go.

The practice of blaming the victims of rape— often attributing the fault for the crime to a woman’s provocative dress or sexual behavior—has been diminished in the US legal system due to the institution of rape shield laws. These laws, now present in all 50 states, deem evidence of a victim’s past sexual conduct inadmissible in court. However, due to the weighty repercussions of a rape accusation—its ability to destroy the career, family and respectability of the accused—and to a few prominent instances of maliciously false rape claims, women alleging sexual assault and rape are treated with skepticism. In the case of undetermined guilt for such a crime, a dilemma arises: should the alleged culprit be given the benefit of a doubt to ensure an innocent man is not punished? Or should the faith be put in the victim to prevent the liberty and possible re-offense of a rapist?  Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut answer.