In an experimental simulation, observers evaluated one of four different legal procedures in the presence of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome in a video-taped reenactment of a criminal trial. The procedures were adversarial, inquisitorial, adversarial without lawyer, and adversarial with plea bargaining. Data were gathered on the fairness and perceived satisfaction of the defendant with the final outcome, and quality of the defense and prosecution. Contrary to previous research, results showed that the several different procedures were seen as equally fair and legitimate, which suggests that how a procedure is implemented may be more important than its structural properties in observers' overall evaluations. It was also found that defendants are seen as least satisfied when the ostensibly fairest procedure (eg, adversarial) yields an unfavorable outcome. This finding supports a frustration interpretation and contradicts previous studies which report adversarial to be the most preferred dispute resolution procedure within all outcome conditions.