THE JUDGES WERE EACH GIVEN AN IDENTICAL BOOKLET WITH FIVE CASE DESCRIPTIONS AND ASKED TO RECOMMEND A VERDICT, AND, IF A GUILTY VERDICT IS RENDERED, TO SUGGEST AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE. CASE DESCRIPTIONS CONVEYED THE BASIC EVIDENTIAL FACTORS REQUISITE FOR A VERDICT, THE DEFENDANT'S NAME, THE CRIMINAL CHARGE, AND A SYNOPSIS OF THE TESTIMONY. THE OVERALL PATTERN RESULTING FROM THE JUDGES' RECOMMENDATIONS WAS AGREEMENT ON THE VERDICT, BUT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCE IN THE CHOICE OF SENTENCING MODE AND PENALTY SERIOUSNESS WITHIN THE MODE. AFTER ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES IS MADE, NUMBER OF CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN: (1) GENERALLY, WHEN LEGAL CASES ARE EQUALIZED WITHIN OFFENSE CATEGORIES, JUDGES SHOW SIGNIFICANT DISPARITY; (2) THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IS RELATED TO THE DISPARITY; (3) STRONG EVIDENCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO GUARANTEE A HIGH AGREEMENT ON THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE; AND (4) THE TYPE OF OFFENSES APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO THE DEGREE OF DISPARITY. REFERENCES ARE CITED. (DAG)