Victims of child sexual abuse often recant their complaints or do not report incidents, making prosecution of offenders difficult. The child with sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) has been used to explain this phenomenon by identifying common behavioral responses. Unlike PTSD but like rape trauma syndrome, CSAAS is not an official diagnostic term and should not be used as evidence of a defendant's guilt or to imply probative value in prosecutions. Courts have grappled with the ideal use of CSAAS in the evaluation of child witness testimony. Expert testimony should be helpful to the jurors without prejudicing them. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled recently that statistical evidence about CSAAS implying the probability that a child is truthful runs the risk of confusing jury members and biasing them against the defendant. We review the parameters of expert testimony and its admissibility in this area, concluding that statistics about CSAAS should not be used to draw inferences about the victim's credibility or the defendant's guilt.