problems, and substance abuse. These symptoms are
both common in rape victims and more common in
victims than in nonvictims. Some argue that only evi-
dence that symptoms are more common in victims
than nonvictims is relevant to whether a rape occurred.
Evidence that symptoms are common among rape vic-
tims is not relevant if the symptoms are equally com-
mon among nonvictims. However, evidence that a
symptom is not common following rape, but is consis-
tent with having been raped (i.e., is a possible conse-
quence), is relevant if the defense claims that the
symptom is inconsistent with having been raped.
In summary, RTS has been used to refer to the
description of the effects of rape in Burgess and
Holmstrom’s 1974 study, research on rape-related
PTSD, and research on other effects of rape. This can
be very misleading because the RTS symptoms
described by Burgess and Holmstrom are not the same
as those described in the DSMcriteria for PTSD. In
addition, unlike PTSD, RTS is a description rather than
a diagnosis with specific criteria. Some of the symp-
toms described by Burgess and Holmstrom have been
found to be more common in victims than in nonvic-
tims in subsequent research, but this research has not
replicated Burgess and Holmstrom’s stage model. The
term RTS will be used here to refer to the entire body
of research on the effects of rape.Expert Testimony on RTS
Most often, the purpose of expert testimony on RTS is
to counter a defendant’s claim that the sexual contact
in question was consensual. It can be difficult to prove
nonconsent because there are often no witnesses or
other physical evidence, and the complainant often
knows the defendant. Expert testimony regarding psy-
chological trauma experienced by a complainant is
considered to be the strongest evidence available in
consent defense cases.
Expert testimony on RTS was first introduced in
U.S. courts in the early 1980s. Most states that have
ruled on its admissibility have found it to be admissible
although decisions vary depending on the specific
nature and purpose of the testimony in a particular case.
For example, the testimony offered can differ in terms
of whether the expert provides only a general descrip-
tion of the common aftereffects of rape or whether the
expert also provides an opinion regarding whether
a particular complainant is suffering from RTS.Testimony also differs in terms of whether the expert
refers to RTS or to PTSD.
Several criteria determine whether expert testimony
is deemed admissible. First, the expert has to be quali-
fied. Various kinds of professionals (e.g., psychologists,
psychiatrists, crisis workers) have provided testimony,
but their qualifications have rarely been an issue in
determining the admissibility of RTS evidence. The sec-
ond criterion is that the evidence should be scientifically
reliable and valid. RTS evidence generally is seen as
reliable if it focuses on whether RTS is a generally
accepted response to sexual assault and is not seen as
reliable in determining whether a rape occurred. The
third criterion is that the evidence should be helpful to
the jury. In general, the testimony is seen as helpful in
educating jurors about the common effects of rape and
particularly common misconceptions about rape and
rape victim behavior. The final criterion is that the testi-
mony should not be unfairly prejudicial to the defen-
dant. This has been the most controversial aspect of the
testimony, but the degree of prejudice depends on the
nature of the testimony. The testimony is generally
viewed as less prejudicial if the expert uses the term
PTSD versus RTS, if the testimony is used to rebut a
defendant’s claim that a complainant’s behavior was
inconsistent with having been raped, and if the testi-
mony concerns victims as a class versus the specific
complainant. The testimony is viewed as unfairly preju-
dicial and as invading the province of the jury if it is
used to prove that a rape occurred (e.g., if the expert
states that he or she believes that the victim was raped or
definitely has RTS).
Although RTS evidence was initially introduced in
sexual assault cases to corroborate the complainant’s
claim that sexual contact was nonconsensual, defen-
dants have also sought to use the testimony to support
their version of the facts. For example, a defendant may
try to offer expert testimony that, because a complainant
does not have RTS, she must not have been raped.
Compelling complainants to be examined by defense
experts undermines protections introduced by rape
shield laws and could deter reporting. Nonetheless,
concerns about complainants must be balanced against
the rights of the accused. The admissibility of RTS evi-
dence by the defense depends on several factors. For
example, expert testimony offered by the defense is
more likely to be admissible if the prosecution first
offered the testimony. Some argue that it should only be
admissible in these circumstances. In addition, someRape Trauma Syndrome——— 673R-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 673