This study examines how defendant age (25/65 years), gender (man/woman), and race (Black/White) influence mock-jurors' verdicts in a domestic homicide trial, and whether defendant credibility and other-condemning emotions (OCE) mediate these effects. Jury-eligible participants (N=1146) read trial transcripts, provided murder and tampering verdicts, and completed measures assessing credibility and OCE. The three-way interaction revealed divergent verdict patterns by defendant race. Among White defendants, verdict trends were consistent across murder and tampering charges. Specifically, age x gender effects were observed with gender effects appearing only for young defendants (men: greater likelihood of guilt), and age effects found only for female defendants (older: greater likelihood of guilt). For Black defendants, the pattern differed by charge. For murder verdicts, age effects emerged only for men—young (vs. older) men were more likely to be found guilty. For tampering verdicts an age x gender effect was observed. Specifically, gender effects appeared only for young defendants (women: greater likelihood of guilt), and age effects emerged only for women (young: greater likelihood of guilt). Contrary to young White women, young Black women were treated more harshly than their young male or older female counterparts. Additionally, older Black defendants received greater leniency than older White defendants across both charges. Mediational analyses (Process Models 10 and 12, respectively) indicated that credibility and OCE explained race effects for older male defendants in murder trials, while credibility mediated race effects for young female defendants. For tampering verdicts, OCE mediated age × gender effects at all levels, but only for young defendants did race influence outcomes. Specifically, young Black women elicited higher levels of OCE, increasing their probability of guilt, whereas young White men elicited higher OCE levels, resulting in greater punitiveness. Findings underscore the complexity of juror decision-making, emphasizing the importance of intersectional analyses in examining bias within legal contexts.