These arise in conducting a trial when a person afflicted with AIDS or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is present in the courtroom as a member of the jury, a party, a witness, a victim, an attorney, court staff, or law enforcement official. If public panic about AIDS increases as the disease progresses through the population, the judiciary will increasingly be confronted with AIDS-related issues. Consequently, it is essential that judges become educated about the nature of AIDS, its transmission, and its epidemiology. The judiciary can play a leadership role in educating the public and alleviating panic by interpreting AIDS-relevant laws and regulations and litigation. In adjudicating AIDS-related issues, judges must scrutinize precedents and adapt them in new ways to this unique disease. While some controls may be necessary to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity, the State cannot act arbitrarily; and measures taken must be commensurate with the problem, provide some indication of effectiveness, and be the least restrictive alternative. Faced with a potential clamor for more restrictive and coercive measures, the judiciary must react with compassion and consideration of fundamental rights.