<p>This study uses a multimodal discourse analysis (MDA) framework to investigate how physical evidence is linguistically and semiotically constructed in Saudi criminal rulings. Drawing on a corpus of authentic judicial texts encompassing cases of theft, assault, and drug-related offences, the research explores how courts transform material items—such as weapons, jewelry, bruises, and surveillance footage—into narrative elements that substantiate or contest criminal allegations. The analysis focuses on discursive strategies including nominalization, indexical anchoring, evidential framing, and intertextual references to Islamic legal concepts such as “ḥirz” (safeguarded property), “niyya” (intent), “qarā’in” (circumstantial indicators), and “shubha” (doubt). The findings reveal that physical evidence does not possess intrinsic meaning; rather, it is discursively mediated through culturally embedded legal logic and rhetorical structures. Courts assign evidentiary weight by aligning physical evidence with confessions, testimonies, or forensic reports, frequently navigating challenges, such as retracted statements or claims of coercion. The study identifies five recurrent semiotic patterns: iconic/indexical anchoring, referential expansion, visual-verbal translation, denial contestation, and cultural semiotic calibration. These strategies function not only to establish credibility and causality but also to reinforce institutional authority and narrative coherence.</p>