The research examined both the short-term impact and the long-term impact of biased media presentations on subsequent jury decisionmaking. The participants were 249 university undergraduates. Each participant viewed one of three biased television programs. The intellectual pro-defense video was from the MacNeil-Lehrer show and highlighted the problems of false allegations resulting from repeated and leading questions. The intellectual pro-prosecution video was from 60 Minutes and emphasized that young children can and do tell the truth in cases of sexual abuse and that expert witnesses sometimes provide false testimony to the contrary in return for money. The emotional pro-prosecution video was from the Geraldo show and focused on the questioning techniques in a recent case. Immediately or a month later, participants read a trial summary of a case in which allegations of child sexual abuse came about after 6 months of therapy. Participants decided on a verdict, rated their confidence in their verdict, and rated the witnesses. Results revealed that in the immediate condition, the videos had a significant impact on the verdict. Both videos that were biased toward the prosecution led to more guilty verdicts than did the intellectual pro-defense video. However, videos had only a limited effects on ratings of witnesses. In contrast, when the time delay was significant (4 weeks) and no obvious connection existed between the media presentation and the mock trial, none of the biased media presentations had an effect on the verdict or on ratings of witness credibility or importance. Tables and 14 references (Author abstract modified)