THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT, WHETHER AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM IS USED OR NOT, JURY SELECTION UTILIZATION, AND MANAGEMENT CAN BEST BE VIEWED AS A TOTAL INTERRELATED SYSTEM. THE TOTAL SYSTEMS APPROACH INVOLVES AN IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE, RESOURCES AND PROCESSES OF A COURT IN VIEW OF ITS OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES. WHILE THE TOTAL SYSTEMS APPROACH DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A PROCESS BE AUTOMATED IN ORDER FOR IT TO REACH ITS FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES, IT DOES ENCOMPASS STEP-BY-STEP AUTOMATION WITHIN AN OVERALL PLAN RESULTING FROM THE SYSTEM ANALYSIS. A TOTAL SYSTEM APPROACH IN COURT OPERATIONS DEMANDS THAT TRIAL SCHEDULING BE COORDINATED WITH THE UTILIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF JURORS. THE AUTHOR STATES THAT WITHOUT THE AID OF THE COMPUTER, THE ANALYSIS OF QUALIFICATIONS AND OTHER DISPOSITIONS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE YIELD OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE ARDUOUS TASKS TYPICALLY BEYOND THE CAPABILITIES OF COURT PERSONNEL. AT THE SUMMONING STAGE, THE COMPUTER RANDOMLY SELECTS JURORS ON THE BASIS OF NUMERICAL NEED AND GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION. IN ADDITION, PAYROLL, ATTENDANCE, AND OTHER JUROR ACTIVITIES WHICH MUST BE MONITORED THROUGHOUT THEIR SERVICE CAN BE HANDLED BY THE COMPUTER. FURTHER, THE NEUTRALITY OF AUTOMATION ASSURES THAT THE LEGAL DEMAND FOR CROSSSECTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN JURIES IS MET. IT IS NOTED THAT JURY SELECTION STATUTES REQUIRE THAT CERTAIN GOALS BE ACHIEVED IN THE SELECTION PROCESS WITHOUT MAKING THE MEANS FOR ACHIEVING THESE GOALS MANDATORY. ANY METHOD THAT EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISHES THE OBJECTIVES OF JURY SELECTION IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE. IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEMONSTRATION OF BIAS OR SOME OTHER FLAW IN THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS, THE AUTHOR BELIEVES THAT THE COMPUTER'S USE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH STATE JURY SELECTION STATUTES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH USE WAS SPECIFICALLY ANTICIPATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. (RCB)