DATA IN THIS STUDY WERE OBTAINED BY VIDEOTAPING INDIVIDUAL DEPOSITIONS FOR PRESENTATION IN LIFE TRIALS AND BY PREPARING ENTIRE PRERECORDED VIDEOTAPED TRIALS. TRIAL REENACTMENTS TOOK PLACE IN ACTUAL COURTROOMS WITH REAL JUDGES PRESIDING. JURORS WERE DRAWN FROM THOSE ASSIGNED TO JURY DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE STUDY. THESE JURORS BELIEVED THEY WERE PARTICIPATING IN AN ACTUAL TRIAL AND THAT THEIR DECISIONS WOULD BE BINDING ON THE LITIGANTS. A COMPARISON WAS MADE OF THE RESPONSES OF JURORS WHO VIEWED A LIVE REENACTMENT OF AN ACTUAL AUTOMOBILE INJURY CASE AND OTHERS WHO WATCHED A TAPED PRESENTATION OF THE SAME CASE. JUROR RESPONSES TO THE LIVE AND TAPED TRIALS DID NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY. MANY JURORS EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF VIDEOTAPED MATERIALS IN COURT CASES. THIS FINDING SUPPORTS SIMILAR STUDIES OF ACTUAL JURORS IN COURTROOMS USING VIDEOTAPED PRESENTATIONS. THE LAWYERS WERE NEVER UNPREPARED AND THEY COULD BETTER PRESENT THEIR STATEMENTS TO THE JURY. JUDICIAL ERROR DECREASED SINCE JUDGES COULD STOP THE TAPE, REPLAY OBJECTIONS AND TESTIMONY, CONSULT LAWBOOKS, AND CAREFULLY CONSIDER ALL POINTS OF LAW BEFORE RULING. IN ADDITION, THE VIDEOTAPE JURORS, IN A TEST OF JUROR RETENTION, RECALLED MORE INFORMATION FROM LATER TESTIMONY THAN THE GROUP THAT SAW A LIVE REENACTMENT. HOWEVER, IF VIDEOTAPE IS TO BECOME COMMON IN COURTS, UNIFORM RULES MUST BE DEVELOPED TO REGULATE SUCH THINGS AS REPLAYING PORTIONS OF TESTIMONY FOR THE JURORS. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH IS NEEDED ON THE IMPACT OF VARIOUS PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES, THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF TAPED TRIALS ON JURY DELIBERATION, AND OTHER PERTINENT ISSUES. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP).