IN ADDITION TO PROCEDURALLY EQUATING GUILT AND SENTENCING, PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS ALSO SHOW LEGAL NAIVETE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF STIMULUS MATERIALS AND IN NOT KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRIALS; E.G., PRESENTING SUBJECTS WITH CIVIL TRIAL STIMULUS MATERIALS BUT ASKING THEM TO DECIDE GUILT. MANIFESTATIONS OF SLOPPY SCHOLARSHIP INCLUDE CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE EFFECTS OF 'EXTRALEGAL' FACTORS AND FAILURE TO USE PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASURES TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF THE EVIDENCE OR THE JURORS' PERCEPTIONS OF DEFENDANT CREDIBILITY IN DETERMINING THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF JURY LENIENCY OR SEVERITY. EXAMPLES OF OVERGENERALIZATIONS AND VALUE JUDGMENTS INCLUDE: (1) A TENDENCY TO IMPLY THAT JURIES ARE NOT COMPETENT AND/OR THAT LEGAL DEVICES TO CONTROL THE JURY ARE USELESS, (2) THE IMPLICATION FROM DEFENDANT CHARACTER STUDIES THAT PERSONS LIKELY TO EXPRESS BIAS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THE JURY, AND (3) PRESENTATION OF VALUE JUDGMENTS THAT ARE BIASED AND CONTRADICTORY. A STUDY IS ILLUSTRATED TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE ISSUE OF STRUCTURAL VERISIMILTUDE FREQUENTLY TENDS TO FADE INTO THE BACKGROUND WHEN CAREFUL LEGAL CONCEPTUALIZATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ARE EMPLOYED. FINALLY, SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM ARE OFFERED. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (DEG)