The purpose of this study was to investigate how the race salience effect influences juror decision making when manipulated through defense attorney statements. The literature is unclear regarding the ability of attorney statements to manipulate race salience and the individual influence of opening statements and closing arguments in creating the effect. In the current study, 207 undergraduate White mock jurors participated in a simulated criminal assault case in which defendant race was made salient through defense attorney statements (through opening statements, closing arguments, or both). Results indicated a race salience effect for verdict choice when race was salient and suggested that closing arguments may be particularly important in creating this effect. Our results also suggest that race salience creates an outgroup favoritism effect rather than the equalizing effect identified in early research. Implications of these findings for the race salience and juror decision making literature are discussed along with implications for actual court cases.