An assumption underlying the common practice of permitting a juror to serve on more than one jury is that jurors can and will reach multiple verdicts independently. Two studies were carried out to examine this assumption. The first experiment had mock jurors consider several cases in succession. Subjects exhibited a clear contrast effect on the strength of evidence; those subjects who initially saw strong prosecution cases were less likely to convict in a moderate test case than those who had initially seen wcak prosecution cases. In the second study, the contrast hypothesis was tested for actual juries' verdicts through archival analyses. The results of this field study paralleled those obtained in the experimental study. The discussion focused upon alternative theoretical explanations for these results, implications for trial practice, and the strengths and weak‐nesses of the methodologies applied in these studie