Date rape and acquaintance rape cases are difficult to prove and often not considered real crimes by attorneys and judges. The burden of conviction rests heavily on the jurors who tend to be less biased and more likely to convict. Jurors also place great emphasis on the judges courtroom instruction "beyond a reasonable doubt," therefore only 50 percent of such rape trials result in convictions. The presentation of rape trauma syndrome evidence through expert witnesses including psychologists is admissible in most courts, however it must be presented in a way consistent with the Daubert ruling. According to the Daubert ruling, social scientists may describe symptoms which typically define victimization and compare those to apparent symptoms in the alleged victim. The presentation of rape trauma syndrome often results in repeat victimization for the alleged victim through vigorous cross-examination by the defense including inquiries into the victim's sexual history. The defense will likely provide expert testimonies as well to contradict what the victims witnesses stated earlier. Research on the impact of rape trauma syndrome evidence demonstrates that jurors rely heavily on courtroom instructions and the presentation of rape trauma syndrome evidence alone does not appear to benefit the victim in the most cases. Research into the most effective way to present rape trauma syndrome is needed and is currently underway.