Following an attorney's objection, the evidence was ruled admissible or inadmissible by the judge; at the end of the transcript, subjects read the judge's charge to the jury, which was biased against the defendant or victim, or was neutral. Judgments of guilt showed reactance effects when damaging evidence and judge's summary were against the defendant. There was a similar effect when the bias was against the victim. Subjects were more likely to evaluate the judge as 'too directive' in his summary when he was inconsistent, making the juror's decision more difficult. This latter result supports the conflict theory of decisionmaking. Study data and eight references are supplied. (Author abstract modified)