This paper examines the function of grammar and pragmatics in testimonies and cross-examinations, specifically in sexual assault cases in the United States. Past research demonstrates a society’s view of sexual assault, particularly as a means of control, is reflected in cross-examination methodologies, which propagates into the laws surrounding sexual assault. This aims to investigate the impact the shift in societal perspective on sexual assault has on the cross-examination methodologies and ultimately the laws surrounding sexual assault in the United States. The incorporation of Conversation Analysis (CA) is used as a framework to evaluate the court transcripts. The framework is coupled with guidelines previously used to examine sexual assault cross-examinations in other countries. It is imperative to apply this to the United States as the view on sexual assault differs. The cross-examination and testimony transcripts in three court cases are examined. The guidelines for grammar include transitivity, use of adverbials and modals, nominalizations and subjects of unaccusatives, while the pragmatics focus on strategic questioning, presupposition, and selective reformulation. The findings in this qualitative study demonstrate the lack of progress the United States judicial system has made in terms of sexual assault. While the societal perspective shifts, the cross-examination methodology and the language of the laws remain constant, despite increase in awareness and supporting Acts. Given the small scope of research conducted in the United States, more research is necessary, along with reformation of the court proceedings and laws surrounding sexual assault.