Mock juries of six females each listened to a tape recording of facts in a courtroom trial. Twelve juries heard facts producing an appearance of guilt and facts producing an appearance of innocence. In half of the juries hearing each type of trial, jurors heard the facts in the same (homogeneous) order; in the remaining juries, each of the six jurors heard the facts in a different (hetrogeneous) order. Jurors individualy rated defendant guilt, discussed the case as a jury, and then individually re-rated guilt or innocence. Results showed that discussion of facts acted to polarize prior judgments. Presentation of information in a heterogeneous order led to a greater increase in guiltiness ratings after discussion in the guilty-appearing trial and to a greater decrease in guiltiness ratings for the innocent-appearing trial. When the jury members possessed different sets of information, judgment shifts were increased after discussion. Results suggested that the information influence on judgment is enhanced where discussants possess different sets of information for sharing. Results also suggested that differential memory may account for variety in shared information where members of the discussion group were all exposed to the same information. Eight references, notes, tabular data, and a figure are included. (Author abstract modified)