Federal jury conviction rates for regulatory crimes between 1961 and 1980 show that juries frequently convict when violations involve national defense, selective service, immigration, and food and drug violations, but only convict slightly more than one-third of the antitrust and civil rights cases. Juries have shown an increasing tendency to be harsh with drug offenders, a factor that attorneys should consider in plea bargaining. Juries consistently have been more willing to convict accused robbers than defendants charged with tax evasion, whereas jury treatment of antitrust cases has varied. Rape convictions for 1961-80 are well below average for felonies and violent crimes, but a noticeable trend toward toughness is emerging. Antitrust verdicts show seemingly random variation, possibly because jurors' values toward monopolistic practices are ambivalent, volatile, or unformulated. Legal professionals commonly believe that jury trials are more advantageous to defendants than trials by judges alone, but data from seven large jurisdictions show that juries convict persons accused of felonies more often than judges. In contrast, analysis of criminal case verdicts in Florida reveals that juries are significantly more lenient than judges in adjudicating misdemeanors and lesser offenses. Paradoxically, jury trials are used far more often in felony cases than in minor ones. Lawyers often seek a change of venue from an urban area to a remote region, unaware that juries' conviction rates are lower in large cities than in less populated areas. Empirical data also demonstrate verdict tendencies that are out of kilter with an area's demography and reputation. For example, jurors in reputedly liberal San Francisco County are among the toughest in California. Attorneys must also consider judges' ideological biases and policy preferences when deciding an appropriate strategy for a client. Tables and 28 footnotes are included.