The possibility that judges' expectancy effects may adversely affect the results of jury trials is a problem that needs careful theoretical analysis and innovative methods of resolution. Traditional efforts by the legal community to counteract the threat of verbal/nonverbal bias by judges include the "Code of Judicial Conduct," curative instructions (admonishments to the jury following certain courtroom behaviors), and mistrials or motions for mistrials. Unfortunately, these methods are not based on any theoretical scheme, do not always eliminate judge expectancy effects, and sometimes even promote expectancy effects. A theoretical explanation of expectancy effects in the courtroom has been offered that is based on six factors emanating from experimenter-expectancy literature. These factors can be viewed either as a series of hypotheses to be tested or as a form or proof in and of themselves. They can be applied to judges' courtroom behaviors to test for expectancy effects, leading to the formation of rules that will eliminate expectancy effects from the courtroom. Some of the proposals to reduce judge expectancy effects are the use of process instruction, juror training/orientation, and modifying/codifying the methods for giving final instructions to juries. (RL)