IT IS INDICATED THAT THERE IS STRONG ADVOCACY AMONG LEGAL PROFESSIONALS FOR PRERECORDING COMPLETE VIDEOTAPED TRIALS (PRVTT) EDITED FOR UNINTERRUPTED PRESENTATION TO A JURY, FREE OF OBJECTIONS, TIME LAPSE, AND IRRELEVANT COMMENT. THE BENEFITS BELIEVED ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH A PROCEDURE ARE BRIEFLY LISTED. THE EFFECTS OF SUCH A PROCEDURE ON THE TRIAL PROCESS WERE MEASURED IN A 4-YEAR RESEARCH PROJECT THAT EMPLOYED SIMULATIONS OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS THAT AIMED AT MAXIMIZATION OF REALISM. WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS, THE SIMULATIONS USED ACTUAL JURORS WHO VIEWED ACTUAL CASES IN THE PRESENCE OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGES. IN MOST INSTANCES THE JURORS BELIEVED THEY WERE ABOUT TO DELIBERATE AND DELIVER A BINDING DECISION. THE RESEARCH FOCUSED ON THE EFFECTS OF THE VIDEOTAPE MEDIUM ON THE INFORMATION PROCESSING AND THE DECISIONMAKING OF INDIVIDUAL JURORS PRIOR TO GROUP DELIBERATION. THE 11 STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE REPORT ARE ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING MAJOR RESEARCH FOCUSES: (1) STUDIES COMPARING JUROR RESPONSES TO VARIOUS MODES OF TRIAL PRESENTATION, (2) STUDIES EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF DELETING INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY AND THE INFLUENCE OF DIVERSE TECHNIQUES FOR EDITING SUCH TESTIMONY, (3) STUDIES INVESTIGATING JUROR RETENTION OF TRIAL-RELATED INFORMATION AS A FUNCTION OF THE PRESENTATIONAL MODE, (4) STUDIES EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF PARALINGUISTIC AND NONVERBAL CUES ON JUROR EVALUATION OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY UNDER DIVERSE MODES OF PRESENTATION, AND (5) STUDIES INVESTIGATING THE POTENTIAL INFLUENCE OF ALTERNATIVE VIDEO PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES ON JUROR RESPONSE. THE DISCUSSION OF EACH FOCUS INCLUDES A BRIEF CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH AREA, SPECIFICATION OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS ADDRESSED, A NONTECHNICAL SURVEY OF PROCEDURES UTILIZED, AND A SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FINDINGS. WITHIN THE CONFINES OF JUROR RESPONSES EXAMINED IN THESE STUDIES, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT NO EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT VIDEOTAPED PRESENTATIONS EXERT A DELETERIOUS EFFECT ON COURTROOM COMMUNICATION BETWEEN TRIAL PARTICIPANTS AND JURORS, NOR DOES PRVTT APPEAR TO EXERCISE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON JUROR DECISIONMAKING PROCESS. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--RCB)