<p>In the present study, we examined whether mock jurors would disregard recanted informant testimony or whether they would continue to rely on it when rendering verdicts especially when it was otherwise consistent with other evidence presented at trial. 476 jury-eligible Prolific Academic workers listened to an audio-recorded mock criminal trial that varied whether an informant testified that the defendant confessed to him while the two were incarcerated together. The informant’s testimony varied in its consistency with other evidence presented at trial (consistent, inconsistent) and whether the informant retracted his testimony during cross-examination (maintained, recanted). Participants perceived the informant as less credible and were less likely to find the defendant guilty when the informant’s testimony was inconsistent with other evidence presented at trial compared to when it was consistent. They also perceived the informant as less credible and were less likely to find the defendant guilty when the informant recanted his testimony compared to when he maintained his story. In contrast to the continued influence effect, participants disregarded the recanted testimony–even when it was consistent with other evidence–when rendering their verdicts.</p>