This study examines the question types, witness responses, and Gricean maxim violations in Filipino and English courtrooms and analyzes how language mediates legal power and evidentiary control. Both languages employ open-ended questions in direct examination and closed-ended ones in cross-examination. Filipino transcripts exhibit five hybrid question forms absent in English, reflecting heightened institutional asymmetry, especially in courts with no interpreters. These structures exacerbate power asymmetry between the witness and interrogator. Witness responses include clarification, compliance, and two newly identified types: complete and incomplete. The maxim of quantity is most frequently violated in both languages, through open-ended questions, leading to overinformative responses. Violations of manner, relevance, and quality reflect cognitive strain and institutional pressure. Findings call for a forensic pragmatics lens to examine how courtroom discourse operates under institutional constraints and attest that the courtroom is not a neutral vehicle for truth but a discursive battleground that reflects linguistic asymmetries and institutional power.