PARTICIPANTS IN THIS STUDY WERE 106 FLINT, MICH., RESIDENTS DRAWN FROM THE JURY POOL OF THE 68TH DISTRICT COURT. ALL THOUGHT THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO RENDER A DECISION IN A REAL TRIAL. THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE QUESTIONNAIRES THEY WERE ASKED TO FILL OUT RELATED TO A STUDY ON JURY SIZE. A GROUP OF 22 WITNESSED A MOCK TRIAL IN WHICH TWO EXPERT WITNESSES IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE TESTIFIED LIVE UNDER FAIRLY TYPICAL COURT CONDITIONS; 28 JURORS VIEWED BOTH WITNESSES ON VIDEOTAPE; 28 SAW THE PLAINTIFF WITNESS ON VIDEOTAPE AND THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIVE; WHILE 28 SAW THE DEFENSE WITNESS ON VIDEOTAPE AND THE PLAINTIFF WITNESS LIVE. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA REVEALED THAT THE MEDIUM BY WHICH THE DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WITNESS TESTIFIED HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON TRIAL OUTCOMES. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS APPEARED LIVE OR ON VIDEOTAPE HAD NO DIRECT EFFECT ON TRIAL OUTCOME AS MEASURED BY AMOUNT OF AWARD TO PLAINTIFF. HOWEVER THE MEDIUM DID INFLUENCE JUROR PERCEPTIONS OF THE WITNESS' CREDIBILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS. THE PLAINTIFF WITNESS WAS SEEN AS MORE CREDIBLE AND HIS TESTIMONY WAS BETTER RETAINED WHEN HE APPEARED LIVE, WHILE THE DEFENSE WITNESS MADE A BETTER IMPRESSION WHEN HE APPEARED ON VIDEOTAPE. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE VIDEOTAPED PRESENTATIONS MAY HAVE A BIASING EFFECT, BUT THE DIRECTION OF THE BIAS IS NOT PREDICTABLE. AN EXTENSIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY IS APPENDED. (GLR)