In this study, 132 male and female undergraduates served as jurors in a simulated trial in which defendants with varied legal histories (a previous conviction, a previous acquittal, or no record) either gave the appearance of withholding evidence while testifying or answered all questions in a straightforward manner. Three hypotheses were tested. The first states that defendants who withhold crime-relevant information will be judged more likely to be guilty and more deserving of conviction than defendants who do not give the appearance of withholding such information. The second hypothesis states that defendants who had previously been convicted will be judged more likely to be guilty and more deserving of conviction than will defendants with no prior legal history. The third states that the impact of a previous acquittal will depend upon whether the defendant withholds evidence. As expected, defendants who appeared to withhold evidence were judged more guilty, more deserving of conviction, and of poorer character than their counterparts who did not give the appearance of withholding evidence. However, the defendants' prior legal history did not affect jurors' decision about the defendant's innocence or guilt. These findings suggest that the act of withholding evidence in the courtroom is such a powerful piece of 'extralegal' information that it may overwhelm any influence the defendant's prior legal history might otherwise have had. A table, footnotes, and nine references are included. (Author abstract modified)