This study explores how language use in legal settings, particularly criminal trials, is shaped by institutional and social practices. Drawing on insights from Sociolinguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis (van Leeuwen 2008; Fairclough 2010), the research examines how Swedish courts operate through regulated practices that dictate permissible actions. In criminal cases, professionals (such as prosecutors) guide laypeople (such as injured parties and witnesses) through structured questioning. The study analyzes an assault case involving two young men, focusing on how the prosecutor adapts his questioning in court based on the preceding police interrogations. Differences between courtroom testimonies and earlier statements are often addressed through recontextualization, with prosecutors using police records to clarify discrepancies. The research highlights how social practices in court restrict laypeople’s control over their narratives, with legal professionals guiding the content. Additionally, it emphasizes how semantic differences between examinations or memory gaps can be exposed to influence the trial outcome. Overall, the study illustrates the hierarchical dynamics within courtroom interactions.