By Marlene Cimons

WASHINGTON _ Despite an increasing body of scientific evidence about how

AIDS is transmitted, judges across the nation have continued to perpetuate

stereotypes and myths about the disease in both their decisions and in their

courtroom behavior, according to a major report to be released Sunday.

``Because judges appear undereducated on the subject of AIDS, they are

permitting prosecutors to use fear and misunderstanding to undermine the rights

of persons with AIDS,'' said Larry Gostin, adjunct professor of health law at

the Harvard School of Public Health, and author of the study.

The study, which examined the cumulative total of all AIDS-related

litigation since the epidemic began in 1981, was released by the AIDS

Litigation Project, which was established three years ago to help lawyers,

health care providers and consumers understand the evolution of laws regarding

the rights of persons with AIDS or those infected with the human

immunodeficiency virus. It is funded by the AIDS program office of the

Department of Health and Human Services.

The study found that, with some exceptions, most decisions in AIDS

discrimination cases have been favorable to persons with AIDS, or HIV infection

in recent years because of the clear body of anti-discrimination law that now

exists.

But in other types of cases, ``not necessarily involving discrimination, but

involving people with HIV, you're seeing the old stereotypes emerge,'' Gostin

said.

For example, he said, one court had what he described as a ``10-foot rule''

in which ``they allowed guards to stand 10 feet away from the defendant (who

was HIV-infected),'' Gostin said. ``In another case, evidence was labeled:

`Evidence from an AIDS patient _ Don't Touch' and this was done in front of the

jury _ and the appellate court said it wasn't prejudicial.''

Moreover, he said, criminal courts ``have been convicting HIV-infected

persons for `attempted murder' and `aggravated assault' and giving Draconian

sentences _ life, in one instance, 30 years in another _ for biting, spitting,

things like that, even though there's never been a single case of AIDS

transmitted that way.''

Gostin said the study showed that courts have been ``reinforcing

stereotypical attitudes about AIDS and people with AIDS, and their decisions

haven't reflected scientific knowledge. And they aren't able to distinguish

clearly between irrational fears and real risk.''

He blamed insufficient AIDS education for the knowledge gap.

Harvey Fineberg, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said, of the

study, that ``it appears that those of us in public health have not yet done an

adequate job in educating the judiciary and other key decision-makers.

``Some courts seem unable to distinguish important from inconsequential

risks of AIDS transmission,'' he added.

The study also said that AIDS-related discrimination cases have escalated at

an unprecedented rate in recent years, making AIDS ``the most litigated disease

in American history,'' said Dr. James Allen, director of the AIDS program

office of the Public Health Service. ``AIDS is a disease that has deeply

affected society.''

Gostin said discrimination nationwide was ``rife'' because ``I can measure

it by the number of cases coming to courts and human rights commissions _ and

there is still a tremendous amount. And those coming into the courts are only

the tip of the iceberg.