An assistant Macomb County prosecutor and a criminal-defense attorney argued this month in front of the Michigan Supreme Court over what details about youth victims of sexual abuse may allowed or barred at a trial by the Rape Shield Act.

Assistant Prosecutor Emil Semaan and defense attorney Alana Sharon appeared Wednesday, March 12, in front of the state high court in the case of Carl Thomas Masi, 53, who is charged with 12 counts of first-degree sexual conduct and four counts of second-degree sexual conduct stemming from allegations he sexually assaulted three girls at various times over a six-year period ending in 2018. Two of the first-degree counts are due to a victim under age 13 and two of the first-degree counts are due to a relationship.

The defense, which claims the accusations are fabricated by the complaining witnesses, says the jury should be able to hear that one of the alleged victims was previously sexually abused by someone during which she watched pornography, although the culprit was not charged, in an alleged separate incident.

The jury should hear that another victim watched pornography without any accompanying sexual activity, the defense says.

Semaan said none of the information should be revealed. At most, Semaan said after the hearing, the trial judge could conduct an evidentiary hearing.

The trial judge, Macomb Circuit Judge James Biernat Jr., who ruled none of the evidence should be admitted, was partially overturned two years ago by the state Court of Appeals which said evidence of the alleged victim who only viewed pornography should be heard by the jury because it is not conduct and is not protected by rape shield law.

The appeals court also upheld a denied Masi’s attempt for inclusion of a second alleged victim who says she viewed or pornography while a perpetrator abused her. The appeals judges noted the abuse was not “significantly similar” to the acts in the Masi case, and the alleged perpetrator was not charged.

The defense appealed that ruling to the high court.

The justices want to determine whether the prior abuse one of the allege victims “constitutes ‘sexual conduct’ for purposes of the rape shield statute,” according to a summary provided by the court.

It also wants to decide whether a conviction of the prior abuse is needed and whether the prior abuse is significantly similar to the case are needed to overcome protections under rape shield, the summary says.

First-degree criminal sexual conduct carries a penalty of up to life in prison.

Also charged in the case is Maria Rose Ryder, 50, who allegedly played a secondary but participatory role in alleged acts with one of the complaining witnesses, the same child who allegedly viewed pornography on her own. Ryder faces one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Ryder maintains her innocence.

The nearly more than 6-year-old case has been lingering in circuit court due to legal motions, the appeal and COVID-19 restrictions.