THE FOUR EDITING TECHNIQUES WHICH CAN BE USED FOR VIDEOTAPED COURTROOM PROCEEDINGS ARE THE CLEAN EDIT, WHICH ACTUALLY REMOVES ALL OBJECTIONABLE TESTIMONY FROM THE VIDEOTAPE; THE VIDEO-ONLY EDIT, WHICH RETAINS THE VISUAL PORTION OF THE OBJECTIONABLE TESTIMONY BUT BLOCKS OUT THE AUDIO PORTION; THE BLACKOUT, NORMAL-MACHINE SPEED EDIT, WHICH ELECTRONICALLY SUPPRESSES BOTH THE AUDIO AND VIDEO PORTION LEAVING JURORS LOOKING AT A BLANK SCREEN; AND THE BLACKOUT, FAST-FORWARD TECHNIQUE, WHICH LEAVES THE JURORS LOOKING AT A BLANK SCREEN FOR A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME. STUDIES ARE CITED WHICH SHOW THAT ALL OF THESE TECHNIQUES ARE POTENTIAL DISTRACTIONS TO JURORS. THE CLEAN AND VIDEO-ONLY EDITS LED JURORS TO SUSPECT THAT THE TAPES MIGHT HAVE BEEN DOCTORED. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE MERE FACT OF EDITING LED JURORS TO QUESTION THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY. WHEN A VIDEO-ONLY EDIT WAS USED JURORS WATCHED FACIAL EXPRESSIONS AND OTHER VISUAL CUES INTENTLY TO FILL IN WHAT WAS MISSING. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT WHEN TAPES WERE EDITED, JURORS MISSED THE OBJECTIONS AND ATTORNEY-JUDGE INTERACTIONS, WHICH APPARENTLY ARE USED AS CUES TO ATTORNEY EXPERTISE. IT WAS FOUND THAT AN UNEDITED VIDEOTAPE WAS LEAST DISTRACTING FOLLOWED BY A CLEAN EDIT, A BLACKOUT FAST-FORWARD, A BLACKOUT, NORMAL-MACHINE-SPEED, AND A VIDEO-ONLY EDIT. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE FINDINGS FOR VIDEOTAPED TRIALS ARE DISCUSSED.(GLR)