The public now has access to cases that were previously solely available to legal professionals in the judicial circle since courtroom discourses (CD) are increasingly being mediated online. The complexity of meaning-building techniques in CD must be analysed using a multimodal approach now that these videotaped trials are available for research and criticism. But in court, because of the law, power, culture, society, or other things, the judge may sometimes move away from being neutral, which can lead to judicial injustice. The judge achieves his or her communication goals in the courtroom by controlling the talk in the courtroom. This is the judge's and it directly shows whether the judge stays neutral and makes sure that criminal trials are fair in terms of both the law and the way it is done. This exploratory research aims to provide to analyse criminal CD critically, a preliminary theoretical framework for multimodal discourse analysis (MMDA) has been developed. First, we collect the dataset from criminal cases in British and America. If we want to comprehend courtroom interactions in their whole, we must take into account all kinds of communication in the courtroom. The study shows that the relationship between the prosecutor and the defense lawyer in a British and American courtroom is not balanced, which is shown by their use of multimodal discourse (MMD). It also sheds some light on future research in this area and suggests ways to improve how criminal cases use multimodality.