a women being interviewed for jury selection to detect jury bias

6 Ways To Prevent Jury Bias In Your Trial

Jury bias can lead to unfair verdicts based on personal beliefs rather than the facts. Even jurors who seem neutral may have unconscious biases that shape their decisions. Attorneys must take steps to identify and manage these biases before and during trial. Failing to do so can put a case at risk. Here’s how to prevent jury bias in your trial.

1. Conduct Thorough Jury Selection (Voir Dire)

Ask the Right Questions

Voir dire gives attorneys the chance to uncover jury bias before the trial begins. To do this effectively, ask case-specific questions that go beyond basic demographics. A juror’s stance on law enforcement, corporate responsibility, or medical malpractice can influence their judgment.

Encourage Honest Responses

Jurors may hesitate to admit personal biases, especially in a courtroom setting. Make voir dire feel like a conversation rather than an interrogation. When jurors feel comfortable, they’re more likely to share honest opinions.

Use Open-Ended Questions

Avoid questions that lead to yes-or-no answers. Instead of asking, “Can you be fair?” ask, “How do you define fairness in a case like this?” Responses to open-ended questions reveal more about a juror’s thinking and potential biases.

2. Use Social Media and Background Research

Identify Hidden Biases

Jurors may not always disclose personal views in court, but their online activity often tells a different story. Social media, blog posts, and public comments can reveal opinions on topics relevant to the case.

Check Public Posts and Affiliations

A juror’s memberships, shared articles, or past statements can provide clues about their viewpoints. If a case involves corporate negligence, an individual who frequently posts anti-corporate opinions might struggle to remain neutral.

Avoid Ethical Pitfalls

Attorneys should follow all legal and ethical guidelines when researching jurors online. Courts have rules about how attorneys and their teams can gather this information. Improper research methods can create legal issues and damage credibility.

3. Challenge Biased Jurors with Peremptory Strikes and Challenges for Cause

Know When to Use Challenges for Cause

If a juror openly admits bias, an attorney can request their removal. Courts grant these challenges when a juror’s views could prevent them from deciding the case based solely on evidence.

Use Peremptory Strikes Strategically

Attorneys can remove jurors without giving a reason, but there are limits. Striking jurors based on race, gender, or other protected categories is not allowed. Use peremptory strikes to eliminate jurors who show subtle signs of bias, even if they don’t openly admit it.

Watch for Patterns in Juror Behavior

Body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions can hint at bias. A juror who avoids eye contact when discussing certain topics may hold unspoken views that could affect their judgment.

4. Educate Jurors on Implicit Bias

Explain Bias Without Accusations

Many jurors don’t realize their own biases. Instead of confronting them directly, frame the discussion in a neutral way. Explain that bias is a natural human tendency and that the goal is to focus only on the evidence.

Use Expert Testimony if Necessary

Bias experts can help jurors recognize their own thought patterns. When a case involves sensitive topics, expert testimony on unconscious bias can help jurors make fairer decisions.

Provide Clear Jury Instructions

Judges should give jurors clear instructions about setting aside personal opinions. Written instructions and verbal reinforcement can help ensure that jurors stay focused on the facts.

5. Monitor Jury Behavior During Trial

Observe Juror Reactions

Jurors who appear disengaged or overly reactive to certain evidence may already have a leaning. Watch for changes in facial expressions, note-taking habits, and overall attentiveness.

Request Judicial Intervention if Needed

If a juror’s behavior suggests bias, attorneys can ask the judge to address it. In some cases, the court may issue a reminder about impartiality or, in serious situations, dismiss the juror.

Consider a Mistrial in Extreme Cases

If jury bias becomes obvious and affects the fairness of the trial, requesting a mistrial may be necessary. This is a last resort, but it can prevent an unjust outcome.

6. Leverage Jury Bias Analysis Tools like JuryScout

What is JuryScout?

JuryScout, a service from Magna Legal Services, helps attorneys uncover potential biases through digital research. By analyzing jurors’ public online activity, it provides a clearer picture of their views and potential leanings. Some biases are easy to hide in court but become clear online.

How It Helps Your Case

JuryScout finds patterns in jurors’ public statements, helping attorneys make better-informed jury selection decisions. Eliminating biased jurors from the start reduces the risk of unfair decisions. JuryScout provides attorneys with valuable insights before seating a jury, making it easier to ensure a fair trial.

Take Control of Jury Bias Before It Hurts Your Case

Jury bias can shape verdicts before the first witness even takes the stand. Waiting until the trial begins to address it is too late. Magna Legal Services offers the tools and expertise to help attorneys identify, challenge, and eliminate biased jurors. Contact us today to learn how we can strengthen your case by ensuring a fair and impartial jury.

empty jury Box in a new court room

What is a Mock Jury?

Attorneys don’t like surprises in the courtroom. A strong legal strategy can fall apart if a jury reacts in an unexpected way. Mock juries are a valuable tool that can prevent this. By testing legal arguments with a group of people who mimic real jurors, attorneys can see how their case might play out before stepping into the courtroom.

How a Mock Jury Works

A mock jury is a test run of a real jury trial. Attorneys present their case to a group of individuals who represent the type of jurors likely to be selected for trial. These participants hear evidence, discuss the case, and deliver feedback. Unlike actual jurors, mock jurors do not decide a real case. Their job is to provide reactions, opinions, and decision-making patterns that attorneys can analyze. Their responses help lawyers refine arguments, strengthen witness testimony, and anticipate challenges before the case reaches a real courtroom.

Selecting the Right Participants

Mock jurors should resemble the people who might serve on a real jury. Attorneys and consultants select participants based on demographics, experiences, and other factors that match the trial’s venue. This ensures feedback comes from individuals similar to those who will ultimately decide the case.

Presenting the Case

Legal teams present key elements of the case, including opening statements, arguments, evidence, and witness testimony. Some presentations involve live interactions, while others use recorded video. Attorneys focus on delivering their case the way they would in court.

Deliberation and Feedback

After hearing the case, mock jurors discuss their opinions just like a real jury. They debate evidence, evaluate witness credibility, and work toward a verdict. Their discussions provide critical feedback on how an actual jury might think and decide. Attorneys use this information to adjust their strategy before trial.

The Benefits of Using a Mock Jury

Testing Arguments Before Trial

Legal teams don’t always know how jurors will react to certain arguments. A mock jury helps uncover which points are persuasive and which fall flat. If an argument confuses jurors or doesn’t land as intended, attorneys can adjust their approach.

Identifying Weaknesses in a Case

Mock jurors often raise concerns attorneys hadn’t considered. They might find a witness untrustworthy, question a key piece of evidence, or misinterpret a legal point. Attorneys can use this feedback to strengthen weaker areas of their case.

Understanding Jury Perception

Jurors bring their own experiences, beliefs, and biases into the courtroom. A mock jury helps attorneys see how different people interpret the case. This information allows them to refine their arguments to be clearer and more compelling.

Expert Support for Mock Juries and Jury Research from Magna Legal Services

Legal success depends on understanding how jurors think. Magna Legal Services provides industry-leading jury research, offering attorneys the insights they need to refine their trial strategy.

Mock Juries & Jury Focus Groups

Magna Legal organizes realistic mock trials and jury focus groups to test legal strategies with JuryConfirm. Over the past decade, Magna Legal has conducted more online studies than anyone in the world – by far. We have run over 2,000 online jury research exercises, working with over 25,000 mock jurors. Attorneys get direct feedback from potential jurors, helping them anticipate challenges before trial.

Jury Consulting & Trial Strategy

Experienced jury consultants analyze mock jury results, providing attorneys with data-driven recommendations. This helps legal teams adjust their approach, from witness preparation to jury selection.

Jury Research with JuryEvaluator

Magna Legal takes jury research a step further with JuryEvaluator. This advanced service uses nationwide jury panels and statistical analysis to predict case outcomes. Attorneys gain a clear understanding of how different types of jurors might respond to their case.

Refine Your Legal Strategy with Magna Legal Services

Success in the courtroom starts long before trial. A mock jury gives attorneys the advantage of knowing how real jurors might think, react, and decide. Magna Legal Services provides the tools, research, and expert analysis to help legal teams build stronger cases. Don’t leave jury decisions to chance. Contact Magna to get the most effective trial preparation possible.

Jury Selection Advice for Prosecutors

 COPENHAGEN (1)

Overwhelmed by the jury selection process? The American Bar Association encourages attorneys to use the expert services of jury consultants due to the subtle nature of determining inherent bias in potential jurors. But it is still the responsibility of the lead trial lawyer to choose and manage the experts, to question the prospective jurors and to make the final decisions about challenges and strikes. So here are a few things to keep in mind.

Continue reading

Internet Shenanigans: Juror Instructions vs Juror Conduct

by Hiliary Remick, Litigation Consultant

Here are a few familiar jury instructions with which, in one form or another, Courts all over the country have been known to admonish jurors…
• You have now been sworn as jurors in this case. I want to impress on you the seriousness and importance of serving on a jury. Trial by jury is a fundamental right.

• Do not do any research on your own. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or any other reference materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments.

• It is important that you keep an open mind throughout this trial. Evidence can only be presented a piece at a time. Do not form or express an opinion about this case while the trial is going on. You must not decide on a verdict until after you have heard all the evidence and have discussed it thoroughly with your fellow jurors in your deliberations.

Does it really work? Do jurors take these cautionary words to heart? Maybe not so much as we might like.
In Philadelphia, defense lawyers for former State Senator Vincent Fumo recently moved to bring a halt to jury deliberations and remove a juror after he posted remarks on Twitter.com and Facebook about progress of deliberations. The juror had told his readers, among other things, to “Stay tuned for a big announcement…”i The former Senator, on trial for Federal corruption charges, said the juror had violated court instructions not to disclose the status of jury deliberations.
Close on the heels of that story, we learned that a juror in a Fayetteville, Alabama courtroom had used the latest Twitter technology to send “tweets” or short updates on the status of jury deliberations against defendants Russell Wright and Stoam Holdings in a civil trial. His remarks included comments like these:
• “So, Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS.”

• “Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It’s bad mojo, and they’ll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter….”

The defendants, faced with a 12.6 million dollar verdict, are seeking a new trial on the ground that the juror’s trial twitters may have impaired his decision making capacity during the trial.ii
It is apparent that jurors can now make use of Internet technology not only to report on proceedings in the deliberation room, but also to perform independent research about their case, the parties, or the legal or other issues before them.
The notion that jurors are not supposed to conduct independent research about a case is a basic tenet of the jury system. We want jurors to form their decision strictly on the basis of evidence which a judge has already deemed admissible. But the Courts and litigants face a wave of tech-savvy, Generation X and Y jurors who routinely rely on computer and cell technology to take in most of their information. The information jurors could gather through Internet searches, however, not only draws from sources outside the permitted evidence, but might also be inaccurate, outdated, or unreliable.
Wikipedia, one of the well-known online information sources identifies itself as the “Free Encyclopedia.” Because it is a “wiki” (a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content) its information is only as good or reliable as its contributors. Jurors who search for case information in Wikipedia, or through any Internet source, might gather information that is not just outside the parties’ settled evidence, but also inaccurate or off-the-mark. Furthermore, the Wikipedia juror might misinterpret the information he finds there. If a juror “Googles” one of the parties, and tries to draw a conclusion about the lawsuit he is evaluating based on what he discovers online, there exists a real risk of prejudice, misunderstanding, or both.
Stories like those from the Fumo and Stoam cases suggest that this trend will only continue to grow.
What are Jurors Up To??A wide range of technology now exists for jurors to use or misuse in the Courtroom, the restroom, the living room, and even the deliberation room. These include:
• Google, Wikipedia and the Internet in General. Most jurors are now thoroughly familiar with the search engines, online encyclopedias and the entire internet as a tool for searching information – even if it is inaccurate or inapplicable to a legal case. These can be accessed from home and portable computers, and from cell and “smart” phones as well. Such “research” could be conducted in a lunchroom or restaurant, a hallway, or at home after hearing a day of evidence.

• Facebook. Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace are well-known online sites that could allow jurors to reach out to others and report on trial information and developments, or to investigate litigants or background information about an ongoing case.

• Twitter. This social networking and “micro-blogging” service could allow jurors to send and read brief information updates or text-based posts on the fly. The service can be used through a computer or SMS phone texts.

• Instagram. This photosharing platform could allow jurors to leak photos from the trials to their instagram followers, and they could also share sensitive information about the trial in the captions of their photos.

• Cell phones and Handheld Devices. Virtually every juror is likely to own a cell phone or PDA device that could allow telephone contact or text message communication to and from any Courthouse alcove or restroom to any person of the juror’s choosing. Some cell devices allow users to perform Internet searches as well.

What are Courts Doing About It??Ideally, Courts would put in place policies that might discourage misconduct in advance: taking cell phones, giving specific instructions to jurors against the use of technology to research or report on trial information, and warning them about any possible sanctions for such activity. However, these policies are not enough to guarantee good behavior.
If litigants or a judge discovers juror misuse of technology during a trial, a mistrial may be declared. During a recent Federal drug trial in Florida, a juror admitted that he had been researching the case on the Internet in direct violation of the Court’s instructions. After an astonishing eight other jurors admitted the same thing, a mistrial was declared eight weeks into the trial.iii Jurors routinely research, blog and reach out electronically in a way they did not do in decades past, and almost without thinking. Once they do so, the secrecy of deliberations and certainty of evidence can be lost.
Perhaps the most troubling possibility is that attorneys and judges cannot be sure when jurors have quietly conducted research or communicated with others about trial events. Jurors may be unable to resist the belief that they will be serving justice by getting detailed answers to unanswered questions. While juror “tweets” or Facebook messages will become newsworthy in a handful of high profile cases like Senator Fumo’s, it seems likely that most “online” juror mischief might go unnoticed. In that case, the Court would simply do nothing at all.
What’s a Lawyer to Do About It??The trend in favor of juror research and reporting on active cases using new technologies is likely to grow and be difficult to detect. What should a lawyer do, be they personal injury attorneys or handling any other legal niche, in response to this trend?
• Ask your trial judge for a specific admonition against Internet use/communication about the trial, and also include an explanation to jurors about why the rule exists and what the consequences of breaking the rule are too.

• Use Voir Dire questions to educate jurors about why Internet research is not reliable for the case, and encourage jurors to help enforce the rule.

• In some jurisdictions, jurors can submit questions for a specific witness; watch for clues in answers to such questions which may suggest a juror might be investigating on his own.

• Learn some of the background signs that a juror might be investigating on his own, and be ready to raise an issue that juror misconduct created an appealable issue.

• Ask whether your jurors use Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter.

• Ask whether your jurors maintain a blog or similar Internet communication site.

• Monitor your jurors’ Internet sites, “tweets” or MySpace/Facebook pages.

• Ask your jurors whether they use smart phones, similar phones with Internet capacity, or devices like the iPod Touch.

• Ask the Court to confiscate jurors’ cell phones while they are in the courthouse.

• Consider encouraging your area Court to implement a policy or formal Local Rules against jurors communicating about cases not just personally but through computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. Such a policy should also forbid Internet searches, chat room discussions and “blogs” mentioning any case.

Hiliary Remick, Esq. is a Litigation Consultant with Magna Legal Services, LLC. She assists trial counsel with creation of trial strategies in litigation throughout the country. Her work includes focus group facilitation and analysis, creation of case themes and arguments, and the development of complex trial graphics as persuasive courtroom tools.??Before joining Magna, Ms. Remick worked as a trial attorney for nearly twenty years in the fields of personal injury and commercial litigation, and brings hands-on litigation experience to her work as a member of our consulting team. Her professional background includes work in the fields of asbestos litigation, and medical and dental malpractice.??Hiliary Remick earned her Bachelor of Arts degree cum laude in Political Science and English from the University of Pennsylvania, and her Juris Doctor from Villanova University School of Law. She is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the American Society of Trial Consultants.

i. Philadelphia Inquirer, “Fumo Lawyers Target Juror, Deliberations”. March 16, 2009.
ii www.nydailynews.com, March 13, 2009.
iii The New York Times, “As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up”. March 18, 2009.