Subjects were 146 male and female undergraduate students studying introductory psychology. They were asked to play the roles of jurors and listen to a tape recording of a defendant answering questions asked by an attorney. One variable of context was whether subjects believed the questioning attorney to be the defense or prosecution lawyer. The other two context variables were whether the defendant revealed unfavorable evidence early or late in the questioning and whether he revealed the information on his own initiative or in response to requests from an attorney. It was hypothesized that the effect of these variables might be mediated by attributions about the defendant's personality, jurors' interpretations of the unfavorable evidence, or the weight that jurors attached to the unfavorable evidence. Analysis of subject responses to a nine-point scale questionnaire revealed that an attorney initiated the presentation, the defendant was judged relatively less guilty and deserving of less punishment. As expected, late presentation led to judgments of relatively greater guilt and more punishment than did early presentation, though only for revelation to a prosecution attorney. There was no effect for the context variable of the attorney to whom the defendant revealed the unfavorable evidence. Attributions about the personality of the defendant poorly predicted judgments of jurors. An effect of time of presentation for attorney-initiated presentation but not for defendant-initiated presentation was contrary to a prediction of attribution theory. Tables, references, and appendixes are included in the experiment. (Author abstract modified)