Objectives: The study aimed to determine whether gender differences and punishment orientation predict juror decision-making in sexual assault trials. Hypotheses: There will be a main effect of punishment orientation, such that the more punishment-oriented someone is, the more likely they will find the defendant guilty. There will be a gender difference in verdict decision, such that women will be more likely to find the defendant guilty. This relationship will be qualified by an interaction with punishment orientation, such that there will be a gender difference in verdict only among those who are less punishment-prone. Method: A sample of N = 211 (101 female, 110 male) Canadian jury-eligible community participants were recruited through the crowdsourcing platform Prolific. Participants read a trial in which a man is charged with sexual assault against a woman. Participants chose a verdict (guilty, not guilty) and rated their confidence in that verdict (where 0 = not at all confident, and 10 = very confident). Participants then completed measures of rape myth acceptance and punishment orientation. Results: Consistent with previous research, we found that men showed higher rape myth endorsement than women and women were more likely to find the defendant guilty. There was no gender difference in POQ scores. POQ scores did not predict verdict decisions. Conclusion: This study adds to the limited research on punishment orientation in sexual assault trials while helping us to better understand the role that punishment plays in guilt decisions. The study tests the current legal assumptions about the right to a fair trial and whether juries can render decisions without considering punishment.