During the jury selection process over a third of respondents felt one or both attorneys were trying to persuade as well as to probe bias, suggesting that attorneys may be abusing the voir dire process. Once the trial began, about two-fifths of respondents felt one or both attorneys were trying more to distort or hide facts rather than seeking to reveal the truth so that the jury could make an informed judgment. Tactics most frequently cited included appeals to the jurors' emotions, repeated interruptions, and disruptive tactics. Mismatched competence of the opposing attorneys had a profound effect on jurors: 56 percent felt disparate attorney skills can affect the outcome of a case, and 35 percent felt that disparities in skills had probably affected the outcome of the actual case they had been hearing. About two-fifths felt that skill disparities were completely or partly responsible for wrong decisions in the trials in which they had been involved. The most frequently made suggestion for increasing the clarity of the evidence ws to permit the jury to ask questions of all parties. Reactions to these findings by judges and trial attorneys ranged from incredulous to agreement with jurors.