The purpose of this study was to examine juror decision making and the potential bias towards Middle Eastern defendants. One-hundred seventy California State University, Fullerton undergraduates acted as mock jurors and read a trial transcript that varied defendant ethnicity (Iranian American or European American) and victim ethnicity (Iranian American and European American) in a 2 X 2 between-groups design. After jurors read the case they were asked to deliver a verdict, recommend a sentence, answer culpability questions, rate the defendant on various trait ascriptions, and provide demographic information. In addition, I included a student survey that measured prejudice towards Middle Easterners, legal attitudes, and White racial identity. It was hypothesized that mock jurors would exhibit bias towards Middle Eastern defendants when the victim of the crime was European American by providing significantly more guilty verdicts, recommending longer sentences, and finding this defendant more culpable compared with all other conditions. In addition, it was also hypothesized that this defendant would be described more negatively with trait ascriptions compared with all other conditions. Results showed no significant differences for the dependent measures of verdict, sentence and culpability ratings, though there were trends in the expected directions. However, Middle Eastern defendants who were charged with crimes against European American victims were rated significantly lower on the personality traits of likeability, attractiveness and approachability. Limitations and future directions are discussed.