JURIES HAVE THE TASK OF INTEGRATING SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS, AS WELL AS OBJECTIVE INFORMATION, INTO A FINAL DECISION. IN THIS PROCESS, JURIES FUNCTION PSYCHODYNAMICALLY MUCH LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL, SUCH THAT THEIR DECISIONS ARE THE FINAL COMBINATION OF A TWO-COMPONENT PROCESS WHICH IS AMENABLE TO ANALYSIS AND PREDICTION. IN THE PROPOSED MODEL OF JURY DECISIONMAKING, EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION IS FIRST INTEGRATED INTO A JUDGMENT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. THE FINAL BINARY DECISION IS MADE BY COMPARING THE JUDGMENT AS TO THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WITH THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO CONVICT, IN A MANNER PROPOSED BY THE THEORY OF SIGNAL DETECTION (A MODEL DERIVED FROM AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF RADAR OBSERVERS IN DETECTING ENEMY AIRCRAFT IN THE MIDST OF ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE SCREEN). THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT HYPOTHETICALLY CONSISTS OF THE JURY'S ASSIGNING A SCALE VALUE AND A WEIGHT TO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EACH WITNESS AND LAWYER. DETERMINING THE SCALE VALUE OF EACH PIECE OF TESTIMONY IS RELATIVELY IMPERVIOUS TO THE SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE JURORS. THE PROCESS OF WEIGHTING EACH PIECE OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED, HOWEVER, IS INFLUENCED BY JUROR BELIEFS, AND PERSPECTIVES. THE EMPIRICAL TESTS SHOW THE VALIDITY OF USING THE MODELS OF JURY DECISIONMAKING PROPOSED TO DEVELOP COURT PROCEDURES THAT MAXIMIZE THE OVERALL PROBABILITY OF CONVICTING THOSE WHO ARE GUILTY WHILE AVOIDING THE CONVICTION OF A LARGER PROPORTION OF INNOCENT DEFENDANTS. TABULAR DATA AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)