This experiment examined how exposure to both negative (anti-defendant) and positive (pro-defendant) pretrial publicity (PTP) affects juror memory and verdicts. Mock-jurors were exposed to eight PTP stories over 10 to 12 days. Pure-PTP mock-jurors received only one type of PTP (negative, positive, or unrelated). Mixed-PTP mock-jurors received both types of PTP in either an alternating (e.g., negative, positive, negative, positive) or a blocked fashion (e.g., negative, negative, positive, positive). Mock-jurors in the negative PTP (N-PTP) condition had a greater proportion of guilty verdicts and had higher guilt ratings than positive PTP (P-PTP) and unrelated PTP (U-PTP) mock-jurors; thus demonstrating a pro-prosecution bias. The mock-jurors in the P-PTP condition demonstrated a pro-defense bias by being less likely to vote guilty and having lower guilt ratings than the U-PTP jurors. Regardless of presentation order, mixed-PTP exposure reduced or eliminated PTP’s biasing effects on verdicts, with mixed jurors’ verdict distributions most closely resembling those of U-PTP jurors. For guilt ratings there was also evidence PTP bias reduction for blocked jurors, while alternating jurors demonstrated a recency effect. As for source memory, mock-jurors in the N-PTP condition made a greater proportion of negative PTP errors than mock-jurors in the P-PTP, U-PTP, and some of the mixed conditions. The authors suggest that the trend for lower source memory errors in this study, as compared to similar past research, may be due to increased temporal and environmental cues afforded by the spaced PTP exposure. Additionally, the smaller proportion of critical source memory errors for mixed-PTP jurors than for pure-PTP jurors may be due to differences in these jurors’ memory for PTP facts.