The cases reviewed are State v. Saldana (Minnesota, 1982), People v. Bledsoe (California, 1984), and State v. Marks (Kansas, 1982). The criteria emerging from these cases regarding the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence in rape cases are that the expert must be qualified and the evidence must be scientifically reliable, helpful to the jury, and not unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. Rape trauma syndrome evidence is most often used where victim consent is an issue to indicate that victim reactions parallel those characteristic of persons who have been raped. The testimony may also be used to instruct jurors in typical reactions of rape victims, so as to prevent jurors from making conclusions based on mistaken stereotypes of victim behavior. Those objecting to the admissibility of such evidence argue that expert testimony on the syndrome is not beyond the common knowledge of the jury, that it invades the province of the jury since it is only intended to bolster the witness' credibility, and that jurors may 'overweigh' the testimony to cause prejudice against the defendant. Other arguments are that the syndrome is not scientifically reliable and that it could adversely impact the complainant by opening up questioning about her emotional life. 41 references and a list of 18 cases.