Juveniles are developmentally different from adults but are often treated similarly in the criminal justice system. In case processing, many juveniles are transferred to adult courts. Before case processing, many juveniles are interrogated with the same tactics used against adults. Limited research has examined jurors’ decisions in juvenile transfer cases, particularly those involving confession evidence. In two studies, we built on this small line of research and extended it to examine whether jurors make different decisions for juvenile versus adult defendants with differing types of confession evidence. Participants listened to a trial that varied in defendant age (Study 1: 16, 23; Study 2: 13, 16, 23, 42), interrogation pressure (low, high), and interrogation outcome (denial, confession). They rendered a verdict and rated the defendant on dangerousness and maturity. Age did not affect verdict in either study, but it did affect perceptions of dangerousness and maturity in both studies. Study 2 replicated and extended our findings by showing that differences in dangerousness and maturity were driven by participants’ preexisting stereotypes about juveniles as superpredators. Overall, jurors recognized juveniles’ lesser maturity but did not account for it in their verdicts. The stigma associated with the superpredator stereotype may limit jurors’ sensitivity to the developmental vulnerabilities of juvenile defendants.