One theory about jury behavior claims that the ambiguity of evidence in many cases liberates jurors to decide according to their own values; where doubt exists about what happened, and there is almost always some doubt, the jury will stretch the evidence to achieve a morally satisfying verdict. Consistent with this theory is a model which suggests that jurors search for a train of events that seems plausible and, once confident that they have the real story, will often interpret subsequent evidence in a manner that corroborates the story with which they are comfortable. Thus, personal sentiments invariably affect a juror's decision-making process. Because race is one of the great divides in American society, it defies common sense to imagine that jurors can totally eliminate personal biases and distinctive perceptions associated with race. The article concludes that racially-based perspectives, although normally hidden to the jurors themselves and generally unacknowledged by them, seem to be a "hovering presence" in the jury box and the jury room; race is far from everything, but to be sure--race matters. Note, tables, references