Despite vigorous dissent from a scant minority of those interviewed and some qualified answers from the majority, the consensus of the judges, lawyers, and jurors were as follows: (1) defendants in the five cases received fair trials from unbiased juries; (2) courts should not place any restraints on media presence or reporting; (3) media coverage may present some problems in rare cases, but other factors are more important to a fair trial, including the quality of the courts themselves, law enforcement's recognition of an accused's rights, and the ethics of rival attorneys; (4) a juror's background, experiences, and individual prejudices color his/her impartiality far more than pretrial publicity; (5) while pretrial publicity influences a segment of the public, it is less infectious than many believe, such that 12 jurors can always be found who have no fixed opinion about the case; and (6) conflict between the first and sixth amendments of the Constitution is a concern but probably overemphasized. The conflict can be resolved and a fair trial ensured within the scope of existing judicial machinery if the judge and rival attorneys are competent. (Author abstract modified)