Account for the Transformation of Your Jurors

Will the individuals who serve on your jury be the same people they were before they were called for service and selected? Will they have the same mental habits and preferences they exhibit in their civilian lives outside the courthouse? Will they be the same people they portray themselves to be on social media? There are good reasons to believe that they won’t. Instead, they’ll be transformed in some subtle but important ways. I came across an article recently (Marder, 2025) making an argument against conducting all or part of trials on online platforms like Zoom. The author, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, bases her argument on the position developed in her book, The Power of the Jury: Transforming Citizens Into Jurors, which argues that the unique setting and processes of a physical courtroom will elevate the civic commitments of individuals, enabling them to become impartial jurors in public disputes.

The idea that jurors’ early experience — being summoned, entering the courthouse, being questioned by the court and counsel, etc. — can play an important role in shaping and resetting attitudes is an important one. Professor Marder takes the argument to the point of saying that even if voir dire doesn’t work for its intended purpose of discovering bias, it is still useful in instilling critical values: “Jurors are made, not found,” she says. While I may tackle the argument that Zoom trials undercut this role at a later time, the article did get me thinking about that underlying premise. According to recent social science (e.g., Salerno et al, 2020), the rituals of court, including the “rehabilitation” steps of promising to be fair, may work more at the level of making people feel that they are unbiased, but without reducing actual bias. To the extent this is true, the juror who has been made through this process, could end up being as biased, or even more so (if they believe, for example, the process has cured them of any harmful views). In this post, I will share some thoughts on this effect, and a few other transformations you should anticipate when citizens become jurors.

You can expect those in the jury box to differ in some important ways from others who are passing by on the street outside the courthouse. The qualities that are accentuated in the juror’s ‘temporary identity‘ will not be fully unique to their personality, but they will be heightened and adopted to the setting in several ways.

They Feel a Sense of Honor and Duty 

As much as they may have tried to wish or argue their way out of service, those who make it to the finish line and find themselves on a jury are often a little impressed by that. After all, they participated in the system, and they were picked. They won! In reality, of course, they merely avoided being struck, but for the newly minted jurors it feels like they have graduated and are stepping into the important social role of deciding a dispute, with the weight of the government behind them. Most will try to live up to that by paying attention in ways they may not have since their school days, and by trying to be neutral.

They Believe They’re Unbiased 

Because these jurors have made it through voir dire, passed the test, and received the apparent stamp of approval from the parties, they will probably believe that they’re unbiased. Even if they’ve expressed a strong attitude or a significant experience during the questioning, they will likely see themselves as having been “cured” by the rituals of rehabilitation (“yes, I can be fair”) and by the apparent agreement from the court and the parties that any earlier concern is not a decisive concern. Of course, the studies (Salerno et al, 2020) suggest that this isn’t accurate — rehabilitation does not make panelists less biased, it just makes them feel that way.

They Are Attuned to Attempted Influence 

Because they see themselves as unbiased, they want to stay that way. They know the parties have an interest, and they know the lawyers are paid advocates, so they’re primed to take what they hear with a grain of salt. Situationally, their resistance to persuasion is likely to be high. If the lawyers use anything that seems to be too transparent as a “persuasive device” that could set up some pushback by jurors who don’t want to be led along. Preview an argument, and jurors are likely to think of reasons why it might not be true. Bottom line, jurors don’t want to just hear a position and agree with it, they want to find their own way to what feels like an independent conclusion.

They Are Information Seekers

Because they’re looking to find their own way to a conclusion, they are looking for information that will help them do that. Initially, that means they’re getting the lay of the land, absorbing the facts and the story, and learning the norms of the field and the situation. Then they will swiftly move toward deciding what they believe is probably true and what isn’t. They will also be skeptical, so they will be looking for evidence that seems concrete and removed from those who are trying to influence them in the courtroom. Ultimately, they want to do the right thing and feel like they’ve made a fair and justified decision.

People in my field who work on assessing jurors will often focus on the strong attitudes and significant life experiences of those who are in the jury pool, but it is important to remember that these views and experiences are not immutable. Situations play a powerful role, and the courtroom creates a powerful situation. So it helps to adapt to jurors based both on what they bring to the courtroom and on who they are once they’re there.