Results support the hypothesis that racially diverse groups exchange a broader range of information about the criminal proceedings than all-White groups. This broader range of information exchange within the racially diverse groups was not attributed to the Black participants. It was the White participants who were observed citing more case facts, making fewer inaccurate statements, and were more willing to discuss issues of racism than Whites in all-White groups. Moreover, the presence of Black participants was predictive of fewer guilty votes before deliberations, indicating that Whites in racially diverse groups were more lenient toward the Black defendant even before information exchange about the case occurred. Implications of the findings for juries and other groups tasked with decisionmaking are discussed and include the observation that racially diverse groups have discussions that are more comprehensive and truer to the facts than racially homogenous groups. Research methodology involved the assignment of 29 mock juries. Mock jury participants were 200 jury-eligible citizens who were randomly selected via computer or who were recruited via newspaper advertisements. Half of the mock juries were all White while the other half included four White and two Black members. Half of the juries received a race-neutral pretrial voir dire questionnaire while the other half received a race-relevant version of the questionnaire. All juries watched a video trial summary involving a Black defendant charged with sexual assault and then deliberated on the verdict. Jury deliberations were videotaped and data analysis involved chi-square calculations to compare the impact of participant race. Future research should continue to probe the processes and outcomes of racially diverse groups. Footnotes, figures, tables, references