The subjects were 360 college students, who were randomly assigned to one of 12 conditions, each involving 5 groups containing 6 subjects. The subjects were presented with a burglary case or a convenience store robbery case. Some subjects read only the case description; others read the case description and learned of the existence of a positive eyewitness identification. In the cases involving eyewitnesses, expert testimony was presented in one of two forms: testimony on the results of a research program about eyewitness identification and testimony about the particular eyewitness under consideration. The subjects who had been confronted with an expert statement made more lenient judgments about the offender but did not discount the eyewitness identification completely. The expert testimony that focused on research results had a moderate impact on the subjects' judgments. In contrast, the expert testimony about the specific eyewitness was the most influential type of expert advice when a causal explanation was provided, but the least influential one when no reasons were given. Although findings generally confirmed previous studies, some exceptions were found. Thirty-three references are supplied.