Many States have recently enacted legislation that tolls or extends criminal statutes of limitations in child sexual abuse cases. These statutes, however, have opened the door to prosecuting alleged abusers based on repressed memories of child sexual abuse recovered many years after the abusive incident. Although the reliability of such memories has not yet been scientifically proven, many therapists believe in the truthfulness and validity of repressed memories, based on experience with patients and anecdotal evidence. The author argues that since prosecutions of sex offenses against children based on repressed memories are more likely to be instigated under newly tolled or extended criminal statutes of limitations, defendants should be provided with certain procedural safeguards. Specifically, due to the serious nature of these charges and their precarious evidentiary foundation, States that currently allow prosecutions based on repressed memories should adopt a bright-line rule requiring that a memory expert testify if the defendant so requests. Although sexual abuse of children is a heinous crime for which offenders should be punished, the importance of safeguards for defendants charged with such reputation-damaging crimes should also be considered. This is particularly true when the foundation for the charges is the complainant's repressed memory. 91 footnotes