Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial or a No Discussions condition in which jurors were prohibited from discussing the evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Findings demonstrated that judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence affected the degree of certainty jurors reported about their preferences at the start of jury deliberations, the level of conflict jurors experienced among themselves, and the likelihood of reaching unanimity. Study limitations and implications of the findings are discussed. 48 references and 5 tables