LEGISLATIVE REFORMS OF RAPE LAWS HAVE TENDED TO OUTLAW ALL INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE REGARDING PRIOR SEXUAL CONDUCT OF THE VICTIM. THIS MAY PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE MAY BE NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT A RAPE CHARGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT MALICIOUSLY. THE FIRST PART OF THIS ANALYSIS GIVES A BRIEF STATE-BY-STATE SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT LAWS OF EVIDENCE. THOSE STATES WHICH STILL FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW AND ADMIT EVIDENCE RELATING TO PREVIOUS SEXUAL CONDUCT ARE LISTED, AS ARE THOSE WITH RADICAL REFORM LAWS (ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH EVIDENCE ADMITTED), AND MODERATE REFORM LAWS (EVIDENCE ADMITTED IF IT CAN BE PROVEN RELEVANT). A RANDOM STUDY OF 180 ADULT MALE AND FEMALE JURORS ON THEIR LAST DAY OF SERVICE WITH A MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, COURT IS THEN REPORTED. IN A 3 X 3 BETWEEN-SUBJECTS DESIGN, THE JURORS WERE ASKED TO ASSIGN GUILT IN A CASE PRESENTED WITH HIGH, MODERATE, AND LOW PROBABILITY OF CONSENT UNDER EACH OF THE THREE EVIDENCE CONDITIONS. THE DEFENDANT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE JUDGED INNOCENT IN THE MODERATE AND HIGH-CONSENT CASES WHEN EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS SEXUAL HISTORY WAS INTRODUCED. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY ARE DISCUSSED. EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES ARE APPENDED.