***Participants and Design*** Participants will be (N = 231) community members from the United Kingdom and Australia who will be recruited through Prolific and paid £1.68 to participate. An a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) suggested that this design will be sufficiently powered (a sample size of 210 is required for a power of .95 with a moderate effect size). The estimated moderate effect size is based on research which has assessed the effect of testimony order, and educative instructions, on mock jurors’ evaluations of the evidence (Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2010, 2011; McKimmie et al., 2020). Participants will be randomly allocated to one of four conditions formed by the between-subjects manipulations of testimony order (chronological testimony, rape-first testimony) and instruction type (educative instructions, standard instructions). The key dependent variables will include participants’ categorisation of the events described in the victim’s testimony (as consensual sex or rape), their perceptions of the defendant’s guilt, their verdicts, their written narrative, and their perception of the persuasiveness of a mock juror’s interpretation of the evidence. Participants’ responses to the event categorisation measure will be used to operationalise the repeated measures variable, time in video (i.e., participants’ responses over the duration of the video). A second repeated measures variable will be operationalised using participants’ answers to the guilt likelihood measure before and after they read the mock juror’s interpretation of the evidence. ***Materials and Procedure*** Participants will be told when they first see the study advertised on Prolific that it involves watching a fictional rape trial. After consenting, participants will be asked to provide their age and gender. **Event Categorisation Measure.** Participants will then be given instructions on how to respond to the event categorisation measure as they watch the video of the victim’s testimony. These instructions will inform participants that they will be asked to indicate whether the events described in the testimony depict rape or consensual sex by moving a slider on a rating scale of 1 (consensual sex) to 100 (rape). The position of the slider will be recorded for every second of video. Before watching the victim’s testimony, participants will watch a video of two people talking about a party and practice using the slider on a scale with different end points to answer a question unrelated to the study. While participants complete this tutorial, they will also watch a screen recording of the experimenter using the slider to respond to the same example question. When participants watch the victim’s testimony, the position of the slider will start at the mid-point of ‘50’ on the rating scale. Participants will be asked to move the slider any time information from the victim’s testimony leads them to update their evaluation. No other prompts will be given to participants during the video to avoid distracting them. To ease interpretation, participants’ responses to the event categorisation measure will be grouped into clusters for each 10 second interval of video (i.e., 10 scores for each 10 second interval). The scores in each cluster will then be averaged to produce a mean score for each 10 second interval to operationalise the time in video. **Judge’s Instructions.** After participants watch the tutorial explaining how to respond to the event categorisation measure, they will imagine that they are a juror serving on a jury in a trial where Janine has accused a defendant (Neil) of rape. In this trial, participants will first receive instructions from the presiding judge. Participants will then be randomly assigned to watch either the educative or standard version of the judge’s instructions. In both versions, the judge first informs the jury about the defendant’s charge of rape and instructs them about the burden of proof. In the educative version of the video, the judge then provides the jury with information about what commonly occurs in cases of rape. Specifically, the judge informs the jury that a) complainants are equally likely to appear either distressed or composed in trial (Burgess & Carretta, 2016; Carretta & Burgess, 2013), b) whether a complainant appears distressed or composed does not indicate whether they are lying or not (DePaulo et al., 2003), c) most victims know the perpetrator (Daly & Bouhours, 2010), d) most rapes occur at a residence (Ceccato et al., 2017; Gilbert et al., 2019), e) it is common for some consensual sexual activity to occur before the assault (Flack et al., 2007; Lorenz & Ullman, 2016), f) victims may either fight back or freeze during the assault (Cook & Messman-Moore, 2018; Edwards et al., 2014), and g) most perpetrators will not use force in their assault (DeGue et al., 2010; Lyndon et al., 2007). In the video depicting the standard instructions, the judge instead instructs the jury to ignore pre-trial publicity, to not talk about the trial outside of the court room, and to inform the court if they already know or have formed an opinion about the defendant. After participants watch Janine’s testimony, they will receive more instructions from the judge. In this video, the judge first provides the jury with the definitions of rape and consent (see Sexual Offences Act, 2003). For participants who initially watched the educative version of the instructions, the judge then reminds the jury about what commonly occurs in cases of rape. In contrast, for participants who were given the standard instructions, the judge tells the jury to provide a unanimous verdict, that they are the deciders of fact, and to ignore pre-trial publicity. **Video of the Victim’s Testimony.** After watching the video of the judge’s pre-trial instructions, participants will then watch the ~6-minute video of Janine’s testimony. Testimony order will be manipulated by varying the order in which Janine’s describes the events. In the testimony, the prosecution’s lawyer calls Janine to the stand to testify and asks her about the night of the alleged rape. In the chronological testimony, Janine first explains how she went to a bar to have some drinks with her friends. After chatting with her friends over a drink, Janine sees the defendant, an old work acquaintance, who later dances with her. They both then go to the defendant’s apartment to talk. At the apartment, both the defendant and Janine continue talking and eventually start kissing. Janine then states that the defendant penetrated and raped her. She then describes in more detail how the defendant forced her back onto a sofa, pinned her down, and assaulted her. Janine states that she did not physically resist this assault, but she did tell the defendant that she wanted to go home. In the rape-first version of the testimony, Janine first describes the details of the assault (from the point where she states that the defendant penetrated and raped her). After this event, Janine then describes the events that occurred earlier in the evening in the order in which they are described in the chronological testimony. **Perceptions of Guilt and Written Narrative.** After watching the judge’s summation instructions, participants will indicate whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of rape. Next, participants will be asked how likely it is that the defendant committed rape, on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very), as a measure of guilt likelihood at time 1. Participants will then imagine they are deliberating with their fellow jurors and that one juror has asked them what they think happened on the night Janine was allegedly raped. The time it takes participants to respond to this measure will be recorded. **Mock Juror’s Interpretation.** Next, participants will continue to imagine that another juror has then described what they think happened during the alleged rape. Participants will then read this mock juror's interpretation that the defendant honestly believed Janine consented to sexual intercourse and therefore is not guilty (the mock juror’s interpretation is available at https://osf.io/hmyx3/). **Verdict Change.** After participants read the mock juror’s interpretation, they will choose another verdict. Participants’ responses to both verdict measures will operationalise the change in verdict measure. Specifically, participants’ responses which stay the same from time 1 to time 2 will be coded as 0. Participants who change their verdict from guilty to not guilty will be given a code of -1. Finally, participants who change their verdict from not guilty to guilty will be given a code of 1. After participants indicate their verdict, they will then complete the guilt likelihood measure at time 2. **Mock Juror Persuasiveness.** Participants will then evaluate the mock juror’s interpretation on the following 7-point semantic differential scales (Westera et al., 2015): unconvincing/convincing, unclear/clear, unpersuasive/persuasive, and poorly presented/well presented. Responses will be averaged to create a composite measure with higher scores denoting greater persuasiveness. **Manipulation Check Measures.** Participants will then be asked at what point during the video testimony did Janine describe the defendant forcing her down and penetrating her, on a scale of 1 (towards the beginning) to 7 (towards the end). This measure will assess the manipulation of testimony order. Participants will then complete six items which assess the manipulation of the judge’s instructions (e.g., “Did the judge inform you that most perpetrators of rape do not use force in their assault?”), by responding either yes (1) or no (0). Specifically, participants will be asked to indicate whether the judge mentioned six different instructions in the videos they watched. For the educative instructions, five of the six instructions are presented in the videos. In contrast, only two of the six instructions are presented in the videos which depict the standard instructions. Responses to this measure will be totalled, with higher scores indicating that participants are aware that they watched the educative instructions.