IN SEVERAL HIGHLY PUBLICIZED TRIALS, THE DEFENSE HAS USED SOPHISTICATED, EXPENSIVE MEANS TO SECURE A SYMPATHETIC JURY. ALTHOUGH THESE METHODS ORIGINALLY WERE A RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS OR SIMPLY ADVANTAGE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, THEIR APPLICATION BY THE DEFENSE MAY CAST NEW DOUBTS ON THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE JURY. THE JURY'S IMPARTIALITY MUST BE ASSURED BY ITS INDEPENDENCE FROM OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. BOTH IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE MUST IN TURN BE ASSURED BY JURY REPRSENTATIVENESS. A REVIEW OF APPROACHES TO JURY SELECTION CONCLUDES THAT THE JURY REPRESENTING A CROSS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY, RANDOMLY SELECTED, CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY AND A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. THE FOLLOWING STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO ASSURE JURY REPRESENTATIVENESS: (1) THE LISTS FROM WHICH JURORS ARE SELECTED SHOULD BE AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE; (2) NO EXCUSES (EXCEPT IN CASES OF MEDICAL HARDSHIP) SHOULD BE GRANTED TO ANYONE SUMMONED FOR JURY DUTY WITH THE MONETARY COMPENSATION INCREASED TO ALLEVIATE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP; (3) THE QUESTIONING OF JURORS, AND PARTICULARLY THE USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, SHOULD BE CURTAILED; (4) SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN IMPANELING JURIES FOR POLITICAL TRIALS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PROMOTE REPRESENTATIVENESS; (5) THE CONCEPT OF THE JURY OF 12 RENDERING A DECISION BY UNANIMOUS VERDICT SHOULD BE PRESERVED; AND (6) THE BURDEN OF CHALLENGING JURY SELECTION PROCEDURES SHOULD BE EASED. (LKM)