In this article, we investigate interactional processes—the gendered construction and negotiation of creditable identities—that lend themselves to differential sentencing outcomes. Based on observations in two courts in North Carolina, we argue that defense attorneys attempt to construct identities of defendants as worthy of leniency. They do so by developing gendered narratives that cast men as good workers, good providers, and as victims of the actions of others and women as good mothers/caretakers and dependent. These identity talk strategies enable defense attorneys, often with the help of their clients, to negotiate the identity of criminal defendants and mitigate the consequences of being labeled. This creates tangible incentives (i.e., nonactive or lesser sentences) for defendants to cooperate in these gendered performances, but has the unintended consequence of reproducing the hegemonic gender order.