THE STUDY SAMPLE CONSISTED OF 254 PERSONS CALLED FOR JURY DUTY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEX., DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 27 THROUGH APRIL 17, 1978. A TRANSCRIPT OF A TRIAL WAS CHOSEN FROM COURT RECORDS AND MODIFIED TO FIT CONTRAINTS OF THE RESEARCH SITUATION. THE TRIAL WAS REENACTED BEFORE A GROUP OF SUBJECTS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY VIDEOTAPED. IT WAS THEN REPLAYED TO OTHER GROUPS OF SUBJECTS IN THE FOLLOWING MODES: AUDIOTAPE, COLOR VIDEOTAPE, BLACK AND WHITE VIDEOTAPE, AND THE MODIFIED TRANSCRIPT READ TO SUBJECTS. IT WAS HYPOTHESIZED THAT DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRESENTATIONS WOULD PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE VERDICT RENDERED, THE RETENTION OF TRIAL-RELATED INFORMATION, JUROR EVALUATIONS OF TRIAL PARTICIPANTS, AND JUROR EVALUATIONS OF THE TRIAL ITSELF. IT WAS FURTHER HYPOTHESIZED THAT CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES WOULD INTERACT WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF TESTIMONY PRESENTATIONS. STUDY RESULTS DID NOT SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT TYPE OF TESTIMONY PRESENTATION WILL ALTER JUROR PERCEPTIONS OF THAT TESTIMONY. IN GENERAL, DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INTERACT WITH PRESENTATION TYPE, ALTHOUGH DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ALONE AND INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER DID RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS. THE BACKGROUND OF JURORS APPARENTLY AFFECTED THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE TRIAL, BUT THESE PERCEPTIONS WERE NOT DIFFERENTIALLY ALTERED BY MEANS OF TESTIMONY PRESENTATION. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT VIDEOTAPE CAN BE AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR LIVE TESTIMONY AND POSES NO THREAT TO THE CONCEPT OF A FAIR TRIAL. GIVEN THE ADVANTAGES OF VIDEOTAPE OVER OTHER MEANS OF TESTIMONY PRESENTATION, IT SHOULD BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH COURTROOM CONGESTION AND DELAY. SUPPORTING DATA AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE PROVIDED. APPENDIXES CONTAIN THE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE AND FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE FINDINGS. (AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT MODIFIED-DEP)