Commentators, even in contemporary times, have often insisted that the narrowness of public (and thus juror) conceptions of what constitutes sexual assault poses a significant obstacle to securing a conviction in rape cases. Tough empirically flawed, it is asserted that the popular image of "real rape" assumes the existence of––amongst other things––a stranger perpetrator, a public attack location, a use of violence by the assailant, and a show of physical resistance by the victim. Drawing on a mock jury study, in which 216 members of the public observed a mini––rape trial reconstruction and were asked to deliberate within jury groups toward a verdict, this article critically examines participants' subscription to this "real rape" prototype. It explores the extent to which jurors' reluctance to convict may be attributable to a more complex interplay of factors than is reflected in the simplistic charge that they assume an unduly narrow conception of what rape does, or could, look like. In addition, it critically reflects upon participants' perceptions of the prevalence of, and reasons for, women's false rape allegations. Juxtaposing participants' responses to predeliberation

This content is only available via PDF.