In the fall of 1995 a representative group of college students at the University of California at Santa Cruz was contacted to provide their responses to various questions regarding racial quotas, racially mixed juries, and affirmative action in jury selection. The intent of the survey was to ascertain their knowledge on the current controversy and the debate surrounding the issue of affirmative action, their comprehension of the importance of racially integrated juries, and their opinions on the present and future status of affirmative action and race-conscious remedies in rectifying racial discrimination in jury selection and criminal trials. Three types of racially mixed juries were examined. In the jury "de medietate linguae," the peers of the defendant, in most cases, are defined in terms of the defendant's social and national identity. The Hennepin County, Minn., model of racially mixed juries derives the racial quota for the minority on the basis of the proportional minority composition in the general population. The social science models, based on behavioral studies, argue that a minimum of three jury members of a racial minority are necessary to offset the group pressures of the dominant majority jurors during jury deliberation. The empirical analyses of the three jury structures of jury representation show that, overall, there is more likely to be greater public support for both the Hennepin and the social science models of jury composition than for the "de medietate linguae" model. There were, however, considerable variations in opinion by race, gender, and social class. 3 tables, 20 notes, 53 references, and a list of cases cited