These stories were manipulated under conditions that explored the prototypicality of the case, the verdict outcome, and whether it was a right or wrong decision; the latter two manipulations, when combined, allowed for a comparison of actual outcomes versus true outcomes and a measure of true culpability. Three or four prototypes, rather than one, emerged for all crimes; and although extraordinary rather than typical, they were not simplistic. Although the subjective element of motive dominated the culpability determination in Experiment I, objectivity prevailed in most cases in Experiment II. A commonsense and complex balancing of objective and subjective factors was the rule, and simplism was the exception. Thus, if jurors bring their commonsense notions of crimes and justice to the adjudicative task, as the evidence suggests they do, then simplistic appeals and stories from attorneys will not likely influence the perceptions of jurors. 4 tables and 30 references