Judges are tasked with discerning whether a defendant's remorse presentation is sincere or fabricated. However, there is limited research examining specific verbal and nonverbal behavioral cues associated with remorse. Two studies were conducted to identify behaviors predictive of authentic, exaggerated, and feigned remorse and to investigate judges' strategies for assessing defendant remorse. In the first study, 134 college students video-recorded a baseline story in which they were either remorseful or not remorseful for a harm they caused to another individual. They recorded the same story a second time with the instruction of exaggerating or feigning remorse. Coders rated the frequency with which participants engaged in 25 verbal and nonverbal behaviors associated with remorse and deception. Results indicated the majority of the behaviors were displayed infrequently; however individuals who were remorseful were more likely to admit guilt, make a commitment not to recidivate, and express empathy than non-remorseful individuals. Compared to the behavior they exhibited in their baseline stories, participants' expressions of empathy and their commitment not to recidivate increased when they exaggerated or feigned remorse; and their smiling and justification of behavior decreased. Despite the significant differences in behaviors across the varying levels of remorse, it is questionable whether these differences would be observable by judges because the mean differences were small. In the second study, judges (n = 56) were surveyed regarding the specific behavioral cues they use to assess remorse. Results indicated judges were more likely to use context-specific behavioral cues (e.g., prior criminal history, admission of guilt, apologies to the victim) than general cues for remorse (e.g., crying, bowed head). When assessing for feigned remorse, judges reported most commonly using gaze aversion, which is not empirically related to deception. An overarching strategy that was endorsed by judges for assessing the sincerity of remorse was examining the consistency between the defendant's verbalizations of remorse and their actions prior to the court date. A general discussion of suggested strategies for evaluating the sincerity of defendant remorse is presented. Strengths and weaknesses of the studies are addressed, along with future areas of research related to assessing remorse.