IN WELL-PUBLICIZED CASES, THE GOVERNMENT OFTEN HAS ADVANTAGES THAT IT DOES NOT ALWAYS POSSESS IN RUN-OF-THE-MILL CASES, INCLUDING ADVERSE PUBLICITY, PICKING THE LOCATON OF THE TRIAL, AND SEQUESTERING THE JURY, ALL OF WHICH CAN AFFECT THE JURY IN WAYS THAT RENDER IT MORE LIKELY TO FAVOR THE GOVERNMENT. AN EXAMINATION OF THESE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE DEFENSE'S USE OF SOPHISTICATED PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES TO SCRUTINIZE PROSPECTIVE JURORS FINDS THAT SUCH PRACTICES SOMETIMES LEAD TO PUBLIC DOUBT ABOUT THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE JURY'S VERDICT. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT ALTHOUGH SOME DEFENSE ATTORNEYS MAY BE OBLIGED TO SURVEY THE ATTITUDES OF POTENTIAL JURORS TO OVERCOME BIASES IN THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS, THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED IF THE LISTS USED TO IMPANEL JURORS WERE MORE COMPLETE, IF FEWER EXCUSES AND CHALLENGES WERE ALLOWED, AND IF (AS A RESULT) THE RESULTING JURY MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTED THE DIVERSITY OF THE COMMUNITY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...ELW