Human decision making is a complex process. There are so many factors that can affect a single person’s interpretation of how a case and evidence are presented. But, generally, ideologies, or attitudes, of a person should come into play prior to looking at their experiences or demographics when selecting a jury. Ignoring a person’s ideology can tempt you to believe that one person will interpret information the same way that you do. While attitudes and ideologies are sometimes treated separately, for the purposes of this article they will be used interchangeably.
Attitudes and Ideologies
Attitudes and ideologies that people have toward a subject can vary depending on the person. Everyone has their own fixed thinking and predetermined notions of how things are or ought to be. In other words, ideologies act as filters for incoming information and a lens through which people view the world. As such, two people of the same intelligence but different ideologies can arrive at wildly different conclusions and opinions when faced with the same set of facts (Dougherty, 2018). Knowing this, attorneys should not solely rely on a potential juror’s experiences and employment history or demographic background to accurately assess how they would react to the information presented.
Confirmation bias also comes into play and coincides with a person’s ideology. People inherently want to be right and for their beliefs to be validated. They display confirmation bias when they only pay attention to information that supports their point of view and ignore other important information. Confirmation bias solidifies ideology, and ideology impedes reason (Dougherty, 2021).
Now, this is not to say that a person’s ideologies are the only factor to consider in selecting a jury: experiences and demographics can be useful “shortcuts” when you lack information about a juror’s relevant ideologies. A prime example of this is the fact that a male juror with one set of demographics and background experiences of one demographic makeup will likely have a very different opinion and ideologies than another male juror with different demographic and experiential background. For example, certain ideologies that are important for your client to avoid having on the jury are going to be more common among jurors with certain work backgrounds.
Attitudes and belief systems are deeply ingrained and often unchangeable. When a juror harbors a strong bias against a particular industry or entity, it is highly unlikely that any argument presented during the trial will sway their opinion (Courtroom Sciences Inc). In my own experience working in jury research, I had a case in which a juror was a white blue-collar worker who could not get past his anti-corporate bias. It had nothing to do with race or educational level in this particular instance, as we saw a similarly situated black male advocate for the corporate defendant’s position.
Experiences
After looking at attitudes and ideologies, the next consideration should be how a person’s life experiences and employment history can play a significant role on any juror biases. For example, a potential juror with a background in law enforcement may be more likely to trust the testimony of police officers, while a prospective juror with a history of working in education may be more sympathetic to defendants who come from a similar background.
Everyone has biases, whether consciously or unconsciously, and it affects how they take in information and process it to form opinions. Coming to understand how experiences affect biases that different people will bring into a case can inform your decisions when choosing a jury and help to make strategically wise and legal choices (Jury Analyst, 2021).
Demographics
The use of demographics in jury selection is not an effective method on its own to predict jury decision making. Based on stereotypical demographic factors, there have long been preconceived notions about what characteristics form a “good” defense juror and a “good” plaintiff juror. This method of thinking stems from the belief that people from similar backgrounds will think alike and decide similarly. For example, a middle-aged white male who is a corporate manager might be perceived as conservative and pro-business. Thus, it is assumed he will be more likely to side with a corporate defendant in a lawsuit (Courtroom Sciences Inc). Demographics, however, are not the sole indicator of jury decision-making and provide very limited assessments of a person without also looking at their attitudes and experiences to show an accurate reflection of juror behavior.
No one factor can predict a person’s decision making. The use of all three (attitudes, experiences and demographics) is necessary to understand more about a juror’s thought process and decision-making criteria. The belief systems and personal experiences of a person are strong indicators of juror behavior, much more so than demographic factors. It is crucial to understand these elements to have a deeper understanding of how a jurors would perceive a case and the biases that they bring with them (Courtroom Sciences Inc).
In conclusion, when selecting a jury it is important to take a three-fold approach: First, look at what ideologies or attitudes jurors possess; second, look at the experiences that they have had in their life that have affected their belief system; and third, look at their demographics last to make the most informed decision you can in your jury selection.
Sources:
“Jury Selection, Ideology, and Confirmation Bias: What lawyers can learn from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn”
“Jury Selection: Ideology Outweighs Intelligence”
“The Impact of Juror Biases”
“Can Demographics Predict Juror Decisions?”
