Cases that were referred to court were more likely to involve older youth who had committed more serious offenses against extra-familial victims. Sexual assault offenders referred to court did not make admissions and did not answer police questioning. However, cases finalized in court, mainly by guilty plea, tended to be less serious and involved intra-familial victims. Sanctions imposed in court cases emphasized the threat of escalated penalties and only secondarily mentioned rehabilitation and behavioral counseling. Data on reoffending indicated that court and conference youth reoffended less when they attended counseling. The author illustrates how the court is a place where accusations can be denied, while restorative justice conferences require the offender to take responsibility for his actions. As such, while court is able to impose more serious sanctions, it is also a place where the accused can deny guilt. Additionally, the court cases, in comparison to the conferences, were seen as enhancing possible victimizing effects because the court cases took twice as long to finalize and they shifted jurisdiction more often than conferences. Victims had to appear in court an average of six times to learn the outcome of their cases, which in many cases with dismissed or withdrawn. The findings suggest that victims of sexual assault cannot rely on court processes to deliver justice. Data were drawn from the Sexual Assault Archival Study (SAAS) and included 226 court cases and 118 conference cases involving youth sexual assault. Variables under analysis included offense-related variables, victim variables, offender criminal histories, seriousness of the charge, circumstances of reporting the incident, the legal journey of the case, how cases were finalized, conference participants, and penalties. Future research should focus on the experiences of victims involved in court cases and conferences. Tables, footnotes, references