The angel investing space has transformed as investors have moved from individual deal seeking to more collaborative models of investing. Angel networks are formal investor organizations that pursue investment deals with entrepreneurs, assist with deal screening, and coordinate due diligence. These coordination activities have clear benefits for angel network members, but they also give rise to a dynamic of reliant judgment in which the espoused opinions of network peers are taken as evidence that weighs heavily on the investment decision. In this article, we provide evidence from an experiment set in an angel investment pitch meeting that reveals the positive bias an angel investor shows toward peer opinions. By revealing these potentially hidden forces in angel network deliberations, we raise awareness and, by extension, offer response strategies for angels and angel network directors to properly manage the influence of peer opinion in angel network discussions.