Body-worn videos enable domestic violence complainants’ first statements to be presented to in court to a jury if a complainant declines to attend. Footage of residential incidents might capture information not relevant to issues in dispute, but which might prejudicially influence juries’ fact-finding. The current research examined whether low salience case-irrelevant changes to background information biased mock juror decision-making. Participant mock jurors (n = 1,108) randomly viewed videos, or extracted audio only, depicting a female actor-complainant providing an alleged domestic abuse statement. Videos depicted toddler’s toys, games and sports equipment, a bookcase, or no additional furniture. The defendant’s mitigating statement referred to the complainant as depressed or of low mood. When the complainant was described as depressed, guilty verdict rates were significantly higher when participants heard audio than when they watched footage. Guilty verdict rates were also significantly lower when videos displayed games and sports equipment. Participants’ pre-existing attitudes towards blaming domestic abuse victims mitigated defendant guilt attributions. Higher perpetrator or situational blame aggravated blame. In summary, case-irrelevant background residential information implying different family relationships can influence juror verdicts, demonstrating a risk to trial fairness from extra-legal information presentation. It is important that courts worldwide are aware of this risk.