Sexual assault is a heinous crime that remains one of the most underreported crimes. Victims of sexual assault face scrutiny for reporting and may be revictimized by the process. The intent of this study was to examine how cross-examination has the potential to revictimize female sexual assault survivors from the perspective of criminal prosecutors. This study may provide insight on whether defense attorneys intentionally cause harm to victims or if there is an automatic level of trauma in testifying. Ten interviews were conducted with criminal prosecutors across the United States. After the interviews, the transcripts were manually analyzed to identify emerging themes regarding the prosecutors’ narratives. With the assistance of Microsoft 365 Copilot, five themes were identified: (a) before the courtroom: preparation and anticipation, (b) during cross-examination: confrontation and emotional harm, (c) at the boundary: legitimacy versus harm, (d) in real time: prosecutors’ intervention and limitations, and (e) aftermath and institutional constraints: judges and the system. Implementing trauma-informed courtroom procedures may minimize unnecessary distress while preserving defendants' constitutional rights; such procedures include allowing more frequent breaks, providing support persons, or using trauma-informed communication strategies. Implementation may help victims feel less trauma when testifying, ultimately creating positive social change.