Historians have long noted that sexual violence was underreported and rarely prosecuted in early modern Europe. While this is undoubtedly true, the prosecution of sexual violence in 18th century Venice is not nearly as rare as this line of argument might suggest. While not always defined by early modern courts as rape (or at least not as ‘violent rape’), there are well over one hundred cases in eighteenth-century Venice that include descriptions of the sexual violation of victims, frequently with physical force and/or coercion. The courts used varying language to describe these crimes: they might be labelled stupro (rape), but more often were ‘defloration,’ ‘seduction’ (often ‘under pretence of marriage’), ‘sodomy,’ or ‘violation,’ and attempted versions of these same crimes. But many of them were described by victims and sometimes by witnesses in ways that we would now unequivocally label rape. And regardless of how the crime was officially defined, much of the courts’ investigation was fairly standard, and determining if a crime had occurred (and how precisely to define it) required three types of evidence: the victim’s own account of the crime, accounts of family and neighbours (ideally but not necessarily witnesses to the crime itself), and physical evidence garnered through examination of the victim’s body. This chapter will examine the collection of forensic evidence in cases involving both unmarried women and young girls, and argue that this evidence was key to the state’s determination of their status and compensation as victims and the penalties of their violators.