At present, 40 States have 'rape shield' reform statutes which limit to varying degrees the admissibility of the victim's prior sexual history with persons other than the defendant. The rationale behind such reforms is that by excluding such evidence, the victim is less likely to be subjected to humiliation in court and that the jury should be prevented from hearing potentially irrelevant, prejudicial testimony. With the assistance of a professional theater company and two veteran trial attorneys, six 2-hour variations of an edited transcript of an actual rape trial involving a consent defense were videotaped. Three of the films embodied a low probability of victim consent fact pattern and the others embodied a high probability of consent fact pattern. Each fact pattern group included a film version reflecting the Common Law practice of allowing relatively unlimited admissibility of prior sexual history evidence; a version reflecting the moderate reform exclusionary rule practice which limits prior sexual history evidence unless a consent defense is raised or the court determines the evidence to be material to a fact; and a version with the radical reform exclusionary rule which is even more restrictive. The results of simulated jury deliberations with both experienced and inexperienced jurors indicated that the introduction of prior sexual history is prejudicial. The lowest conviction rate was found when the high probability fact pattern was crossed with the Common Law rule, while the highest was obtained when the low probability fact pattern was combined with the radical reform practice. However, the full study has not yet been completed. Data tables, footnotes, and a 17-item reference list are included.