A young woman wakes up in a bed a in hotel. Her state of dress appears to have been altered from that of the previous evening. The man who took her to the hotel had a bottle of Rohypnol, the "date rape" drug, in his possession. Experts testified that the woman had been drugged with Rohypnol. The woman has no memory of being raped, and there is no physical evidence of sexual intercourse. the man states that he simply watched the woman sleep. Is this evidence sufficient to convict the man of rape? Why or why not? What facts help you make your decision? What was the ruling in this case? Do you agree or disagree? (See Sera v. Norris, 400 F. 3d 538 8th. Circ. 2005).

Is the evidence sufficent enough to convict the man of rape? Why or why not? What facts help you make your decision? What was the ruling in this case? Do you agree or disagree?