WIDESPREAD USE OF SIMULATED TRIALS AND MOCK JURIES TO STUDY JURY BEHAVIOR HAS LED TO SOME CONCERN OVER THE VALIDITY OF SUCH SIMULATIONS. IN THIS STUDY A TOTAL OF 129 MALE AND 120 FEMALE COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE RECRUITED TO PARTICIPATE IN A VAGUELY DESCRIBED 'JURY PROJECT.' THEY WERE ASSIGNED RANDOMLY TO SIX-PERSON JURIES. (DATA FOR THE 21 EXTRA PERSONS WERE DROPPED FROM ANALYSIS.) HALF OF THE JURORS WERE TOLD THEIR CASES WERE EXPERIMENTAL AND THAT THEY WERE IN A ROLE-PLAYING SITUATION, HALF WERE LED TO BELIEVE THEY WERE JUDGING A REAL STUDENT DISCIPLINE CASE. QUESTIONNAIRES WERE DISTRIBUTED TO EACH GROUP AFTER THE DECISION WAS REACHED. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ROLE-PLAYING JURORS BECAME AS INVOLVED IN THEIR CASES AS THOSE WHO BELIEVED THEY WERE RENDERING AN ACTUAL DECISION. ALTHOUGH ACTUAL JURORS AND FEMALES TENDED TO BE MORE LENIENT, NEITHER VARIABLE WAS ASSOCIATED SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THE VERDICTS. BOTH GROUPS WERE EQUALLY CERTAIN OF THEIR VERDICTS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF VERDICTS WAS NEARLY THE SAME. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT SIMULATIONS HAVE VALIDITY AND CAN BE USED TO STUDY JURY BEHAVIOR. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE APPENDED. (GLR)