The effect of lawyer credibility and juror perception on trial verdicts was tested through the use of a videotaped, reenacted genuine court case. The reactions of two groups of test subjects composed, first, college students enrolled in speech communication courses and, second, persons who had served on a real jury within four years, provided data which was too inconclusive to resolve the discrepancy between the traditional contention that attorneys have little impact on juries beyond information transmission and the contention that the credibility and prestige of the lawyer is the most significant influence in persuading juries. However, results indicated clearly that, in juries, the same methods of persuasion are used in convincing abstaining jurors to join the consensus and that most juries evidence a marked absence of status problems. Six-man juries, as tested, seemed to be equal to and often superior to twelve-man juries. (CH)