This study analyzes differences in conviction outcomes of ecoterrorists compared to left-wing and right-wing terrorists using a mixed-methods approach. I use quantitative analyses to investigate differences in conviction outcomes, such as trial conviction, plea bargain, and case dismissal or acquittal across different domestic terrorist groups. I use qualitative analyses to investigate summary symbols and framing techniques used across domestic terrorist groups. Similar ideological themes found across ecoterrorist groups and other non-terrorist groups, such as environmentalists, ecofeminists, and the American general public may help explain differences in outcomes. Findings suggest ecoterrorists tend to use discourse to explain their purpose and activities similar to discourses that are used by mainstream environmental groups. This contrasts with rhetorical patterns of right-wing and left-wing terrorists, which tend to bypass appeals to mainstream ideals. The use of environmentalist frames may give ecoterrorists an advantage in the criminal justice system by drawing more empathy from the general public.