The issue being discussed is at what point does the nature and amount of news coverage surrounding a case begin to affect the accused's right to a fair trial and what are the remedies available to courts to offset this effect. Two different types of pretrial publicity are examined: (1) factual publicity that contains incriminating information about the defendant, and (2) emotional publicity that contains no explicitly incriminating information, but does contain information likely to arouse negative emotions. The method of the study is presented, and the results shown in a table. Four judgments were collected prior to the start of deliberations but after the pretrial publicity: verdict preference, confidence in verdict, likelihood of guilt, and sentence recommendation. The results of the study on judicial instructions agreed with the prior research as to the ineffectiveness of judicial cautionary instructions to ignore any pretrial publicity. Neither was jury deliberation found to be a generally effective remedy. Tentative support for the effectiveness of continuance for factual publicity and its ineffectiveness for more emotional publicity was found. The change of venue and of venire seem to be the most effective, albeit the most expensive remedies against pretrial publicity effects. 2 tables, 12 footnotes, and 100 references (Author abstract modified)