Underpinned by the assumption that the import of the facts and the law in the courtroom depends on how they are invoked and (re)presented mainly through language use by courtroom interactants, this functional linguistic study critically scrutinizes representation strategies that opposing lawyers use to position social actors in their narratives, integrating Halliday's concept of transitivity and van Leeuwen's inventory of social actor representation. The findings reveal that the two sides consistently exhibit contrasting discursive practices, and that referential choices and grammatical positioning constitute major semiotic resources that work in concert to construct different identities and alternate realities, and negotiate interpretations of the guilt and innocence of the defendant and the victims. Social actor representation, it is argued, constitutes an important contingency bearing on the outcome of this institutional discourse. Such resources are deeply intertwined with each presenter's underlying ideologies in this institutional discourse.