The key question was how effectively bias due to exposure to pretrial publicity could be eliminated through voir dire judgments. The effects of exposure to prejudicial pretrial publicity survived the simple exclusion of jurors who admitted that it might be difficult for them to disregard completely such publicity, but those who made such an admission were no more likely to convict than those who did not. When all causal and preemptory challenges to define the pool of jurors who would survive the voir dire were combined, their verdicts were not comparable to jurors never exposed to the publicity. Challenged jurors demonstrated as much bias as jurors who had not been challenged. The bias created by the publicity survived voir dire unscathed. 135 footnotes