The study shows different approaches to the notion of “comment,” including those of Quirk et al. (1985), Biber et al. (1999) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002). It focuses, in agreement with Stenström (1984, 1994, 1995) and Brinton (2008), on various realizations of selected comment clauses (or pragmatic markers) in courtroom discourse, based on transcripts from a high-profile libel case. It is also an attempt to find a linkage between the most frequent I- and you-oriented comment clauses, their deployment by the participants in the trial and the discourse functions they perform in courtroom talk. The study aims to show that comment clauses can be approached as a discourse phenomenon and that their examination in the context of courtroom interaction may provide insights into how pragmatic meanings are created in an institutional setting.