A total of 67 7- to 12-year-old subjects from two settings -- a laboratory school and a treatment program for police-referred juveniles at risk for criminal offending -- participated in a semistructured interview that contained two vignettes. Each story depicted a youth who had committed a criminal offense, was charged, and retained a lawyer. Subjects were asked a number of legal knowledge questions, had to decide what the youth should plead, and then justified their choices. Although subjects showed some basic legal knowledge, many were unclear about essential aspects of the lawyer-client relationship, and most failed to mention important foundations of jurisprudence; however, plea choices were largely consistent with the level of evidence in the vignette, suggesting that subjects were able to identify and use relevant legal information in decision-making; few gave morally based explanations for their choices. Age and sample differences in knowledge and reasoning emerged. Implications and limitations of the study are discussed. 4 tables, 1 note, and 10 references