<p>This study examines the impact of linguistic characteristics of threats employed by offenders on judicial outcomes in Jordanian criminal courts. This study examines the effects of semantic ambiguity and clarity in threatening language on judicial convictions. This study qualitatively analyses judicial rulings from Jordanian first instance courts issued between 2023 and 2024, systematically sourced from the Qistas legal database. It categorises threatening statements into two primary types: direct threats that explicitly communicate harm and indirect threats characterised by linguistic ambiguity that implicitly instills fear. The primary research question examined is: How does the linguistic construction of threats affect judicial outcomes in Jordanian criminal courts? The findings show that how threats are worded greatly affects how judges interpret them, indicating that courts often base their decisions on the specific language used in threats, particularly regarding the fear and psychological effects on victims. This highlights the essential function of forensic linguistics in judicial decision-making and stresses the importance of judges’ ability to comprehend and interpret linguistic nuances in cases involving threats.</p>