IN THE FIRST EXPERIMENT, 60 ADULT SUBJECTS WERE PRESENTED WITH A HYPOTHETICAL CASE IN WHICH PROOFS OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE WERE AMBIGUOUS BUT WHERE INFORMATION, UNOBTRUSIVELY GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT, REVEALED PRETRIAL RELEASE, PRETRIAL DETENTION, OR MADE NO REFERENCE TO CUSTODY STATUS. SUBJECTS WERE ASKED TO REACH A VERDICT ON A SCALE OF ONE (DEFINITELY GUILTY) TO SEVEN (DEFINITELY INNOCENT) ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION. A ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE INDICATED THAT SUBJECTS IN THE CONTROL GROUP (NO CUSTODY INFORMATION) AND IN THE PRETRIAL RELEASE GROUP WERE GENERALLY UNDECIDED ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT. ONLY 3 OUT OF 20 SUBJECTS IN EACH GROUP GAVE THE DEFENDANT A RATING OF 3 OR LESS. THE PRETRIAL CUSTODY GROUP, ON THE OTHER HAND, INDICATED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PROBABLY GUILTY, WITH 13 OF 20 SUBJECTS RATING GUILT BETWEEN 1 AND 3 ON THE SCALE. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE LACK OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTROL AND THE PRETRIAL RELEASE GROUPS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DEFENDANT ARISING FROM THE FACT OF PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. IN THE SECOND EXPERIMENT, 81 INDIVIDUALS FROM 23 COURTS IN THE YORK (CANADA) JURISDICTION WERE SELECTED FOR A FOLLOWUP STUDY OF TRIAL OUTCOMES AND SENTENCING. THE SAMPLE INCLUDED ALL 31 DEFENDANTS WHO RECEIVED PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDERS DURING A 1-MONTH PERIOD AND 50 RANDOMLY SELECTED DEFENDANTS. SEVERITY OF THE OFFENSE WAS ASSESSED FOR EACH SUBJECT. ELIMINATION OF SUBJECTS AS A RESULT OF CONTAMINATING INFLUENCES (FAILURE TO APPEAR OR COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE WHILE ON RELEASE) OR BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO FINALIZE DISPOSITION WITHIN A 9-MONTH PERIOD RESULTED IN A FINAL SAMPLE OF 29 DETAINED DEFENDANTS AND 31 RELEASED DEFENDANTS. ANALYSIS OF DATA PROVIDED FURTHER SUPPORT FOR THE HYPOTHESIZED NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF PRETRIAL CUSTODY ON TRIAL OUTCOME AND SENTENCE SEVERITY; I.E., DETAINED DEFENDANTS WERE MORE LIKELY TO BE FOUND GUILTY AND TO RECEIVE A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE THAN THOSE WHO WERE RELEASED. RELEASED DEFENDANTS TENDED TO RECEIVE SHORTER CUSTODIAL SENTENCES (WHERE THESE WERE PRONOUNCED) THAN DID DETAINED DEFENDANTS, ALTHOUGH NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE FOUND BETWEEN THESE TWO GROUPS IN THE NUMBER OF PREVIOUS OFFENSES OR SEVERITY OF OFFENSE. (JAP)