SOCIAL SCIENCE TECHNIQUES AND COMPUTERS HAVE BEEN USED BY SEVERAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, PREDOMINANTLY IN TRIALS OF A POLITICAL NATURE, TO AID IN THE JUROR SELECTION PROCESS, WHILE NOT UNERRING. COMPUTER PREDICTIONS OF PROSPECTIVE JUROR BIAS HAVE PROVEN REMARKABLY EFFECTIVE AS DATA BASES EXPAND AND SYSTEM TECHNIQUES IMPROVE, THE IMPACT OF THE COMPUTER ON THE JURY TRIAL WILL INCREASE. WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF TECHNIQUES TO PREDICT A PROSPECTIVE JUROR'S STATE OF MIND THROUGH ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR, INCREASED EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACQUIRE SUCH INFORMATION. WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE RESTRAINTS, THE RESULT IS LIKELY TO BE AN INVASION OF PROSPECTIVE JUROR'S PRIVACY. THE USE OF THE COMPUTER MAY ALSO THREATEN THE CONCEPT OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY. THE IMPARTIAL RESULTS OF THE CHALLENGING SYSTEM COULD BE UPSET BY THE ONE-SIDED OR UNEQUAL USE OF THE COMPUTER; I.E., LITIGANTS WITHOUT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MAY BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN AN IMPARTIAL JURY AND MAY FIND THEMSELVES WITHOUT GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL CONCERNING AN UNFAVORABLY DISPOSED JURY. SEVERAL APPROACHES COULD HELP TO BRING COMPUTER TECHNIQUES INTO THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS IN A FAIR AND USEFUL MANNER: (1) LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO MINIMIZE JURY MANIPULATION; (2) INCORPORATION OF A 'STRUCK JURY' PROCESS TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF STRATEGY PROGRAMS AIMED AT ALIGNING JURY COMPOSITION; AND (3) CONTROL OVER ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT PROSPECTIVE JURORS. (LKM)