Virtual vs. In-Person Jury Research

Three Reasons Why Virtual Jury Research Is as Robust and Effective as In-Person 

Article by Taylor Lyden
Originally published in MA LAWYERS WEEKLY 2020 

In this new age of regional lockdowns and social distancing, counsel have had to adjust trial preparation significantly.     While some jurisdictions are slowly opening and attempting to safely hold trials, many places are still in the early phases of re-opening and still prohibiting gatherings of more than 25 people or requiring quarantine upon entering from certain states.  This has forced people to consider alternate forms of jury research to stay on track for trials scheduled for this fall and winter.   Enter online, or virtual, jury research. For those unaccustomed to online jury research, the prospect can be daunting, to say the least.  You may worry that you won’t get a representative jury, jurors won’t pay close attention, they’ll struggle with technology, or they won’t be able to have meaningful discussions of the evidence.  As a leader in the field of jury research, Magna pioneered virtual jury research.  For over a decade Magna Legal Services has utilized a virtual courtroom for online jury research in addition to the more traditional in-person mock trials, and our experience has taught us that online deliberations are every bit as robust and effective as their in-person counterparts.  With thousands of mock trials to draw from, below are three reasons why we have concluded that there is no substantive difference between virtual and in-person deliberations for jury research.   

• Jurors “get to the point” more quickly online because they are less inhibited. Online videoconferencing has a way of leveling the playing field for jurors.  Each juror deliberates from the comfort of their own home (whatever that environment may be), and each is provided with the same amount of virtual real estate on the other jurors’ screens.  Because jurors cannot be physically large or animated, loud and dominant jurors tend to be less aggressive to others online than in-person, and wallflowers tend to be more confident in speaking up in the group.  Additionally, through years of both online and in-person jury research, we have found that psychologically, there is a feeling of protection afforded by a computer screen for jurors, and this protection allows them to speak their minds openly.  Online jurors tend to benefit from an anonymity effect whereby jurors don’t know each other and don’t have to spend time sizing each other up.  Because of the reduced inhibitions online, jurors more quickly express and advocate for positions that may be seen as unpopular among the other jurors.  In an in-person exercise, jurors have spent the day together and have formed some early impressions of others from eating together and taking breaks together.  When they sit in their smaller groups in deliberations there is more [perceived] pressure to perform a certain way.  Peer pressure can be an exceptionally strong force in the deliberation room.  In virtual research, the metaphorical shield of a computer screen goes a long way in staving off these pressures.  This can be instrumental in avoiding jurors “giving in” to those around them because they are nervous or anxious about speaking up. The added layer of comfort and protection provided by remaining in one’s own home also helps overcome any initial hesitation a juror may have for the online format.  This is not to say that the sociology involved in an in-person deliberation hinders the discussion or changes the outcome; it can simply take longer to get where they are going. 
  

• Modern webcam and voice technology allow for easy access for a cross-section of the community.  Since the world turned virtual in a matter of weeks in the Spring of 2020, technology companies have scrambled to keep pace with the demand of the throngs of people suddenly telecommuting.  The result has been considerable advances in videoconferencing that allow for near seamless interactions among participants in multiple locations.  According to the FCC, only 6% of Americans don’t have access to high-speed internet in their homes, and the majority of this 6% is comprised of Americans living in very rural areas1.  Gone are the days of dial-up internet and “Can you hear me now?” voice connections.  Though Magna uses its own proprietary software and courtroom design, recent advances in technology and vast accessibility of high-speed internet have allowed for a number of options for online jury research.  Whatever the platform, jurors can converse smoothly, as if they were in-person, and the prevalence of webcams (now standard on nearly every phone, computer, and tablet) have provided an experience where jurors “feel” like they are together.  Our experience using Magna’s patented JuryConfirm technology has taught us that even when jurors are using technology they have never encountered, they are able to become proficient in its use very quickly and it is not the distraction many fear it will be.  Finally, many jurors have reported that viewing the evidence virtually is as easy or even preferable to in-person as they are able to view the materials more closely and clearly.   The combination of all these factors has meant that virtual trials are accessible to almost all Americans and jurors are able to effectively communicate and discuss the substance of the evidence and argument, rather than worrying about technological concerns.   
  
• Jurors are now just as comfortable talking online as they are in person.  Because working, schooling, and socializing from home became the norm for so many so quickly, jurors have recently racked up countless hours in front of their screens communicating on video.  These days just about everyone has used Zoom Meetings, GoToMeeting, Adobe Connect, FaceTime, Skype (or similar online meeting platforms) for either work or social purposes, and indeed have come to find videoconferencing to be the “new normal.”  The novelty of transforming “real life” into a virtual setting has worn off as online formats have proved successful in countless situations.  The technology advances outlined above have meant that even the most self-described “technology illiterate” jurors are able to join in the conversation with ease, and the initial learning curve of getting used to talking on a conference call line has already passed for most.  Finally, special features such as “follow-the-speaker” technology have provided a more natural feel in online group settings, allowing for increased ease in following the conversation as it bounces quickly between participants.