FIRST, SINCE CERTAIN PERSONALITY TYPES ARE LIKELY TO MAINTAIN WHATEVER PREJUDICES THEY BRING TO COURT, NO ONE SHOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM JURY DUTY UNLESS THEY ARE MENTALLY RETARDED OR PHYSICALLY INCAPACITATED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE JURY SERVICE IMPOSSIBLE. THIS WOULD NOT ELIMINATE JUROR BIAS BUT WOULD BROADEN THE VENIRE IN ORDER TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE BIASES OF THE TOTAL COMMUNITY. SECOND, SINCE MOST JURORS HAVE A VERDICT IN MIND BEFORE THEY LEAVE THE JURY BOX, UNANIMOUS VERDICTS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. THIS WOULD DECREASE THE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL BIASES OF EITHER THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY IN JURY DELIBERATIONS. THIRD, LAWYER-DERIVED BIASES MAY BE ELIMINATED BY DOING AWAY WITH BOTH CAUSE AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. TOO OFTEN LAWYERS USE JURY SELECTION AS A MEANS TO SEAT JURORS WHO HAVE BIASES FAVORABLE TO THEIR SIDE OF THE CASE. IN MANY CASES, DURING VOIR DIRE PROSPECTIVE JURORS LEARN TO GIVE THE 'RIGHT' ANSWER, GLOSSSING OVER THEIR ACTUAL FEELINGS. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--KBL)