Most sexual assaults reported to the police are not prosecuted, and recent federal policy initiatives seek to change these patterns by promoting forensic DNA testing and utilizing that evidence in court. These directives also instruct legal practitioners to place more emphasize on the evidentiary merits of a case rather than common rape myths about perceived victim credibility. This study explored sexual assault survivors’ experiences providing court testimony in the prosecution of “cold case” sexual assaults that were reopened after DNA testing results corroborated their reports. Using qualitative interview methods, we explored two research questions: (a) how did survivors describe the emotions they experienced during court testimony? (b) how did survivors describe their interactions with legal practitioners during their court testimony? We examined whether survivors’ narratives differed based on the type of sexual assault (stranger perpetrated or nonstranger perpetrated, a defining feature of the “real rape” myth), and how their cases were adjudicated (guilty plea or trial). Results indicated that while forensic DNA evidence was instrumental in reopening these cases, it did not appear to qualitatively shift survivors’ experiences in court or prevent retraumatization. Nearly all survivors described testifying as an emotionally difficult experience marked by anxiety and humiliation. Most survivors stated that defense attorneys attempted to discredit them by evoking common rape myths about victims’ credibility. The results highlight the need for trauma-informed training for legal practitioners on how to prepare survivors for court hearings and how to mitigate the harm of rape myth stereotypes. © 2025 The Author(s)