The purpose of the current studies was to examine perceptions of sex crime severity, framing, and framing congruency on mock juror decision making. Study 1 (N = 230) was exploratory and investigated lay perceptions of legally equivalent sex crimes for both a typical victim and perpetrator. Participants were presented with six sex crimes and answered questions regarding expected nonconsensual behaviors, physical and psychological injuries, perceived severity, and injury likelihood associated with each sex crime. Rape, criminal sexual act, and gross sexual imposition were perceived as high, moderate, and low severity sex crimes, respectively. Informed by Study 1, Study 2 (N = 545) tested whether sex crime frame severity (i.e., high severity versus average or low) or framing congruency among the prosecution and defense would influence mock juror judgments in the context of a criminal trial. Mock jurors read a mock trial, responded to identical measures from Study 1, and additionally completed measures regarding their perceptions of the victim, defendant, and rendered a verdict. Framing influenced perceptions of the defendant rather than the victim or verdict. No significant results emerged regarding framing congruency. Taken together, results from both studies suggest that equivalent sex crimes are perceived differently based on frame alone.