The results indicated that defendants who invoked the Fifth Amendment (either on the stand or by declining to take the stand) were judged more likely guilty and more deserving of conviction than their counterpart who took the stand and answered all interrogation. As anticipated, juror dogmatism interacted with the defendant's sexual preferences to affect juridic decisions. However, the form of these interactions were contrary to our expectations: That is, high-dogmatic jurors were no more punitive toward homosexual than heterosexual defendants, whereas jurors low in dogmatism were actually more lenient toward homosexual than heterosexual defendants. An explanation for the leniency of nondogmatic jurors toward homosexual defendants was proposed, and some implications of this line of reasoning for future research were discussed. (Publisher abstract)