Mock juries of six females each listened to a tape-recording of facts in a courtroom trial. Twelve juries heard guilt-appearing facts, and twelve heard innocent-appearing facts. In half the juries hearing each type of trial, jurors heard the facts in the same (Homogeneous) order; in the remaining juries, each of the six jurors heard the facts in a different (Heterogeneous) order. Jurors individually rated defendant's guiltiness, then discussed the case as a jury, and again individually rated guiltiness. Since pilot work had shown a recency effect for memory of the facts, it was reasoned that a greater variety of information would be shared during discussion in heterogeneous- than in homogeneous-order juries. It was predicted, from information integration theory, that greater variety of shared information would lead to greater polarization effects of discussion. As predicted, heterogeneous presentation, compared to homogeneous, led to a greater increase in guiltiness ratings following discussion of the guilty-appearing trial, and a greater decrease in guiltiness ratings for the innocent-appearing trial. Informational influence on discussion-induced judgement shifts is enhanced where discussants possess different sets of information for sharing. Differential memory may account for variety in shared information where discussants were all exposed to the same information. (Author)