Counterfactual thinking is a form of mental simulation that informs causal judgments regarding the role antecedent events played in producing present outcomes. We examined whether inducing participants to think counterfactually about a case involving eyewitness evidence would sensitize them to variations in eyewitness evidence quality. Participants read a transcript of a murder trial in which we manipulated the quality of witnessing and identification conditions associated with the prosecution's eyewitness. A counterfactual mindset induction manipulation was embedded in the defense's closing arguments. The counterfactual induction produced a sensitization effect. Participants in the counterfactual condition rated the prosecution's eyewitness as weaker and convicted less frequently when the eyewitness evidence conditions were unfavorable to accuracy. However, evaluations and convictions did not increase when these conditions were favorable to accuracy. Verdicts among participants in the control condition did not differ as a function of the eyewitness evidence manipulation.