Some of the ways linguists approach tape-recorded evidence in criminal law cases are described, and misconceptions of attorneys and jurors about language are noted. The speech event of bribery is examined as a template of the event structure against which bribery accusations can be measured. Detailed consideration is given to the speech acts of offering, agreeing, threatening, admitting, lying, promising, and requesting. These speech acts are viewed as the way people use language to get things done. The author believes that linguistic analysis offers jurors ways of viewing evidence that will help them see language structures on tape. As expert witnesses, linguists must be clear and nontechnical so that the jury can understand but not so simple that a judge may deem the testimony unnecessary. The author also contends that linguistic analysis is not related to either the defense or the prosecution because linguists analyze language, not guilt or innocence. Tables and figures