the most obvious specific reform, as already pointed out by gabbaflamencocrossover, is to shift towards a less adversarial legal system, one in which the representatives of the defendant and appellant have a much less overt role in court. not necessarily through the whole legal system (a reform so large as to make it completely unrealistic), but in this area theres surely more than adequate policy justification for such a shift.
i think nomadologist's idea about the case resting on analysis of the appellant's motive is very interesting. i wonder to what degree this kind of logic is currently a part of the legal logic. i dont think it could ever be sufficient alone though, there is only so far one can be certain that there is no reason for the accusation to be fabricated (no motive attributable to the appellant surely cannot equal conviction).
a question i suppose is how much can we feel it is acceptable to sacrifice for legal certainty... does looking at sexual/psychological history have pragmatic implications too drastic to render it at all acceptable as courtroom material? i cant see how they cant form some part of the process, but there has to be a balance. it goes without saying that legal reform must take steps to make the process much less daunting, and less difficult, for females who have been sexually mistreated, the balance is clearly uneven. but in that process the question is how far is it appropriate to go?
