You are a public defender in a medium-sized court district that just received a new case: You'll be representing Jim, who has been accused of sexually assaulting one of his employees. You recognize the victim, Susan, immediately, because you are aware that she was involved in a similar case four years ago:

In that case, Suzie had accused her previous employer of sexual assault after she scored poorly on a performance evaluation. During that trial, evidence was presented to show that Susan had that she would lose her job, so she raised the sexual assault claim in order to obtain a financial settlement. In fact, there was never any proof that the sexual assault actually had taken place.

When you're looking over this current case, the situation seems similar at first, and you suspect that Jim has been falsely accused by Susan. However, during your first meeting with Jim, to discuss your defense strategy, he admits to the sexual assault and says that he was aware of Susan's previous case. He says that he was also aware that your state allows evidence of past accusations in criminal courts. Jim clearly saw Susan as an easy target, because admitting this evidence at trial would raise serious suspicions with any jury.

After your meeting with Jim, you think about the case and what to do: Jim IS correct to assume that a jury would likely use the previous case against Susan, and the physical evidence in this current case is very weak. Questioning Susan's personal life and informing the jury of the previous case will likely result in an acquittal. This will be a relatively simple case to win, but you are concerned both about Jim's behavior and also with degrading Susan's reputation unnecessarily.

and answer the following questions...

1) What are the conflicting moral principles that you have to deal with deciding what to do?

2) From a deontological perspective, what should you do? FULLY explain and support your answer.

3) From a utilitarian perspective, what you do? FULLY explain and support your answer.