This chapter discusses the results related to the Research Question 2(a),“How accurately do interpreters render the Manner of Speech in courtroom examination questions under different modes and modalities in remote settings”. To address RQ2, interpreters’ interpreting performance data were collected from an experiment on Zoom. Partipant interpreters were randomised into different modes (consecutive v. simultaneous) and then different conditions of interpreting (video v. audio-only). In total, interpreters were randomised into four groups: (1) CI audio (n = 14), (2) CI video (n = 11), (3) SI audio (n = 12), and (4) SI video (n = 13). In total, 3250 min of interpreting performance audio-recording data were transcribed into texts for further analyses. Based on analytical models developed by Hale (The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. John Benjamins, 2004), Liao (2013), Shi (2018), and Liu (Interpreting, 2020), English question types and their interpretations in Mandarin were analysed. Two independant markers listened to the interpreting performance recordings and scored the interpreting performance in accordance with analytical models. For the main analysis, the General Linear Regression Model between-within ANOVA was conducted. The quantitative results show that interpreters were more accurate when interpreting questions in the consecutive mode under the audio-only condition. The qualitative analysis was conducted using the Discourse Analysis method. The qualitative results reveal that (1) Professional interpreters showed difficulties in interpreting declaratives with tags and checking tag questions, particularly in the cross-examination, where lawyer questions were more coercive, controlling and confrontational than questions in the examination-in-chief. (2) Linguistic differences in grammatical formation and cultural connotations have implications for the interpreters’ efforts to achieve pragmatic equivalents when rendering lawyer questions in court. (3) The omission or alteration of certain features in lawyer questions was largely due to a lack of syntactic and semantic equivalence that was influenced by the linguistic and cultural differences between the source and the target language.