This study adopts a corpus-based approach to investigate the use of epistemic modality within the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) corpus. Employing AntConc for detailed data analysis, the research delves into the distribution of epistemic modality regarding orientation and value, framed within the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) model by Halliday and Matthiessen [1]. The findings reveal that low-valued epistemic modalities constitute the largest segment of the corpus, accounting for 60.3%, followed by high-valued modalities at 23.9% and median-valued modalities at 15.8%. This distribution suggests a discernible preference for a lower standard of proof within the tribunal context, as opposed to a higher threshold. Moreover, the analysis indicates that implicitly subjective orientation pervades nearly half of the corpus. This predominance underscores the effective employment of epistemic modality to attenuate personal involvement by omitting first-person pronouns, thereby demonstrating speakers’ efforts to embrace impersonality and objectivity in their assertions. These findings provide valuable insights into the nuances of epistemic modality in courtroom discourse, illuminating how modal choices shape power dynamics, credibility, and persuasion in legal contexts. By integrating SFL and legal discourse analysis, this study not only elucidates the judicial implications of linguistic strategies but also offers practical insights for legal professionals aimed at enhancing effective communication in the courtroom.
