THE 24 JURIES WERE MADE UP OF 144 FEMALES ENROLLED IN AN INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY COURSE. HALF OF THE 6-PERSON PANELS LISTENED TO EXONERATING EVIDENCE, HALF TO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE. THESE GROUPS WERE AGAIN DIVIDED WITH EACH MEMBER HEARING THE FACTS IN THE SAME ORDER FOR HALF THE CASES AND IN DIFFERING ORDER IN THE OTHER HALF. WHEN ALL JURORS HEARD THE FACTS IN THE SAME ORDER (HOMOGENEOUS ORDER), A GREATER NUMBER OF FACTS WERE RECALLED DURING THE DISCUSSION BUT RATINGS BY INDIVIDUAL JURORS DID NOT CHANGE MUCH. WHEN EACH PERSON HEARS THE FACTS IN DIFFERING ORDER (HETEROGENOUS ORDER), EACH JUROR CITED FEWER FACTS BUT MORE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DISCUSSION AND THERE WAS MORE CHANGING OF OPINION IN THE DIRECTION OF INNOCENT FOR THE EXONERATING TRIAL AND GUILTY FOR THE INCRIMINATING. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE LAST FACTS PRESENTED WERE BEST REMEMBERED. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT DIFFERENTIAL MEMORY PRODUCES GREATER VARIETY IN THE INFORMATION SHARED DURING DISCUSSION, AND THUS, ENHANCES DISCUSSION-INDUCED JUDGMENT SHIFTS. STATISTICAL TABLES AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)