The evidence in the case was provided by a police inspector and a gynecologist who testified that blood tests proved inconclusive in identifying the defendant. The results of this study indicate that verdict decisions relied more heavily on the perceived positive appeal of the defendant, rather than on his race or the victim's race. The most unexpected outcome was that the predictive power of positive defendant appeal was not affected by the provision of judicial instructions. In this study, the white jurors were more likely to convict the white, than the black, defendant. The primary limitations of this study were the absence of a jury deliberation process, the problem of external validity, and the use of college students (who have been shown in other research to be less likely to convict than the public at large). 1 table, 1 note, and 36 references