The Massachusetts Court of Appeals this month upheld the conviction of a former Harvard Law School Student found guilty of raping a Harvard undergraduate.

Kevin Watkins has now filed an appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), which will consider in August whether to review the case.

In 1990, Watkins was convicted of raping a Harvard College undergraduate. Watkins, who was a second-year law student at the time of the 1988 rape, was sentenced to five years in prison, but was released pending appeal.

Assistant District Attorney Daniel A. Less, the prosecuting attorney for the appeal, said he does not think the SJC will hear the case. "The appellate court's opinion is very good," Less said. "They followed the law appropriately."

If the SJC refuses to review the case, Watkins will be incarcerated, Less said.

Willie J. Davis, Watkins' attorney, filed for appeal on two issues, according to court records. He argued that Watkins was subject to double jeopardy.

Watkins was originally indicted on two identically worded charges. He was convicted of one and acquitted of the other, but the jury did not specify which was which.

In his decision, judge Paul A. Chernoff ruled that "it is generally immaterial which act or acts the jury based their verdicts on."

Davis also claimed that the testimony of a Harvard-appointed investigator, Mark Lauritsen, should not be admissible. Lauritsen, had described a discussion with watkins during his inquiry, in which Watkins confessed to having had sexual intercourse withthe alleged victim. Watkins said the intercoursehad been consensual.

Both before and during the trial, Watkins'attorney had objected, saying Watkins had revealedthat information under duress--he was afraid thatif he did not talk to the investigator, he wouldbe "kicked out of" Harvard. Prior to Watkins'conviction, no hearing was held to considerwhether the statement was given under intensepressure.

But Chernoff ruled that the threat of expulsionfrom Harvard--which was never explicitly stated bythe investigator--did not constitute sufficientpressure.

"The judge was correct...in not sensing a'glimmer' of involuntariness in the university'sinvestigation," Turnoff's decision reads.

Less said the decision has importantimplications in defining involuntary testimony.

"You have to draw a limit on what you considerpressure to speak," Less said. "That he thinks hemay be thrown out of a prestigious law schoolshouldn't rise to the level of...[being] beaten."

Davis could not be reached for comment