The research tested the hypothesis that stereotypes of elderly victim/witnesses differentially affected jurors' perceptions and decisions. The participants read a trial summary describing the aggravated assault of a man. The described case hinged on the victim's eyewitness identification of the defendant. The description of the victims was varied to examine five types of victim/witnesses: (1) a generic adult victim, described as being 31 years of age; (2) a generic elderly witness, described as being 66 years of age; (3) a 66-year-old senior citizen described to elicit the vulnerable-senior stereotype; (4) a 66-year-old grandfather; and (5) a 66-year-old statesman. Contrary to expectations, no significant differences existed between the perceptions of the college and community samples. In addition, ratings of the victims' believability did not vary according to victim type. Verdicts however, did differ. The proportion of guilty verdicts awarded for the statesman was significantly higher than those awarded when the victim was a generic adult, senior citizen, or grandfather. A significant difference also existed between the vulnerable senior citizen and the generic elderly case; the generic elderly victim received a greater proportion of guilty verdicts than did the vulnerable senior citizen. Footnotes, tables, and 21 references (Author abstract modified)