Observations of the deliberations showed that discussions of the evidence were fairly cursory and that a sizable portion of information presented during the hearing was never discussed. Actually, most juries tended to move quickly to a discussion about the appropriate sentence, rather than first offering any reflections or impressions of the evidence. There was also a low level of recall of evidence. Jurors were motivated by a desire to rehabilitate offenders and set them on a socially acceptable path and put more weight on evidentiary information than on extralegal factors, goals consistent with restorative justice objectives on which Teen Court programs are based. Teen Court, a radically different system of juvenile justice for first-time, nonviolent offenders (also known as Youth Court or Peer Court), gives youthful offenders the option of pleading guilty to a misdemeanor offense, being sentenced by a jury of other teens, and having the charges cleared from their records on completion of the sentencing requirements. This system, based on principles of restorative justice, serves as an alternative to the traditional juvenile justice systems. Sentencing options typically include restitution, community service, jury duty, apologies, attendance at educational workshops, and tours of correctional facilities. The purpose of this study was to assess how adolescent jurors made sentencing decisions in one Teen Court program. The study asked about the sentencing goals of adolescent jurors, examined their recollection and discussions of evidentiary and nonevidentiary information, and assessed how they made decisions and passed judgment on the actions of others. Tables, appendix A-B, notes and references