This research was conducted by Dexter, et. al., and was designed to look at how different methods of Voir Dire could somehow remedy the effects of pretrial publicity on potential jurors. As we are very much aware, the media has a proven record of being right on top of selected offences that have taken place, and have really put their two cents in on their opinion of the case verses all of the objective facts of the case. This publicity has been proven by Carroll, et. al., 1986, as well as numerous others. There is no doubt, both scientifically and by using common sense that pretrial publicity effects the potential jurors ability to be impartial in the case. This research conducted by Dexter, et. al. is intended not to counter this opinion, but rather to accept it and look into some possible remedies for the effect.
             There are various remedies available at this time, including judicial admonition, continuance (or delaying the trail), change of venue, and voir dire. We will be looking at the voir dire option, and seeking to test the efficacy of an extended voir dire – where the defense attorney sought to educate rather than eliminate prejudice – against a minimal voir dire (the typical procedure found in the federal courts).
             There have been some interesting conclusions found while researching voir dire. And the opinions could not be more disparate. This issue has become so integrated that several states have made it law that a defendant received a voir dire, while other states have effectively eliminated attorney-conducted voir dire. There are also varying ways to conduct the voir dire. Some are attorney conducted, some are judge conducted and then we have minimal voir dire, extended voir dire as well as formal and informal voir dire.
             Dexter et. al. decided to test the efficacy of extended voir dire, and was used to (a) provide examples of how pretrial publicity could inappropriately affect a juror's post...