Current legislative constraints in England and Wales restrict the study of jury decision-making to the use of mock juries, wherein research participants make decisions in a simulated trial context. Despite serving as a valuable tool to understand the ways in which actual jurors and juries operate, mock jury research has faced criticism from scholars and practitioners, particularly in relation to methodological approaches taken and ethical concerns which may arise. These issues may risk compromising the advantages of mock jury research and may also influence the validity of research findings. This chapter explores some common components of mock jury research and draws upon interdisciplinary insights from psychology and law to delineate how researchers can manage methodological and ethical decisions within mock jury paradigms. The chapter presents empirical examples and offers reflections from the authors’ own mock jury research to provide insights into how they have identified and addressed common concerns. In this context, the chapter highlights recommendations for researchers undertaking mock jury research which aim to minimise any adverse effects resulting from methodological and ethical choices, and maximise the extent to which such research is fit for purpose.