The current dissertation had three primary objectives, categorized into two MTurk studies with capital juror-eligible community members: (a) cross-validate the psychometric properties of the JQVV, (b): explore the role of legal attitudes via the JQVV in mock capital sentencing decisions, and (c): examine the JQVV's ability to detect juror social desirability in capital voir dire. Impressively, Study 1 (N = 552) and Study 2 (N = 313) provided strong and consistent evidence for the JQVV's reliability and construct validity. In the mock juror paradigm, punitive legal attitudes on the JQVV (i.e., Crime-Neg, Convict, and Death-Pos), did not directly affect sentencing decisions, however they indirectly influenced the perception of nearly all other legally relevant variables (e.g., evidence type). For example, participants with more punitive criminal justice attitudes evaluated aggravating evidence more favorably which, in turn, increased death sentence verdicts. Study 1 also underscored the concerningly low levels of comprehension jurors have regarding judicial instructions and other relevant legal knowledge (e.g., the definition of aggravating). In Study 2, the support-life and support-death groups evidenced divergent patterns of social desirability, although support-death participants did not dramatically alter their scores between the genuine and social desirability condition. Additionally, the JQVV Pros-Cyn and Justice-Pos scales were moderately effective at identifying social desirability, marking the first ever questionnaire to examine juror response styles. Implications for research, professional practice in capital jury selection, and legal policy are discussed.