This research examines a fundamental question at the heart of American democracy: How do ordinary citizens make life-altering decisions as jurors, and what happens when institutional trust, political polarization, and generational change reshape that process?
When twelve strangers enter a deliberation room, they carry more than the evidence presented in court. They bring their beliefs about justice, their trust (or skepticism) in institutions, their life experiences, and increasingly, their partisan identities. This project investigates how all these forces interact when jurors must decide someone’s guilt, innocence, or liability.
Why Jury Decision-Making Matters Now.
The American jury system faces unprecedented challenges. Consider these troubling trends:
The Disappearing Jury Trial: In 1962, roughly 12% of federal civil cases went to jury trial. Today, fewer than 1% do. Criminal trials show similar decline—from about 20% in the mid-20th century to approximately 2% today. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this collapse: jury trials nationwide plummeted from 125,222 in 2019 to just 33,880 in 2020—a staggering 73% drop in a single year.
The Trust Crisis: Between 2020 and 2024, public confidence in the judicial branch dropped from 59% to just 35%: a 24-percentage-point decline in four years. When citizens distrust the very institutions asking them to serve as jurors, how does that skepticism shape their decision-making?
The Polarization Problem: Political identity now influences how people interpret identical evidence. Research shows that jurors with strong partisan commitments may evaluate the same testimony differently depending on whether it aligns with their political worldview. When political tribalism enters the deliberation room, what happens to the ideal of impartial justice?
The Generational Divide: Younger Americans engage with civic institutions differently than previous generations. Their relationship to authority, their information consumption habits, and their expectations about participation have shifted. These generational differences matter when jury pools increasingly span multiple age cohorts with fundamentally different orientations toward civic duty.
The Research Approach: Bridging Theory and Reality
This project synthesizes over six decades of jury research, from foundational studies in the 1960s to cutting-edge experiments from 2024, to understand both how jury decision-making works in theory and how contemporary challenges are reshaping it in practice.
Part I: Historical Foundations
We begin with the constitutional origins of trial by jury and trace how scholars have studied juror behavior over time. This section establishes why understanding jury decision-making matters for democratic governance and introduces the methods researchers use to study what happens behind closed deliberation room doors.
Key Question: How did we get here? What does the historical arc of jury research reveal about evolving approaches to understanding citizen decision-makers?
Part II: Theoretical Frameworks
The heart of the project examines competing theories about how jurors process evidence and reach verdicts. Think of this section as a toolkit for understanding the psychology of judgment:
Mathematical Models: The Probability Meter
Imagine a juror’s mind as a scale, tilting toward “guilty” or “not guilty” as each piece of evidence is presented. Bayesian models suggest jurors update their beliefs incrementally, like adjusting a dial with each new fact. These models are elegant but may be too simple—real human reasoning is messier than mathematics suggests.
Example: A prosecutor presents DNA evidence. A Bayesian juror might think, “I was 40% sure of guilt. With this DNA match, I’m now 75% sure.” But does this accurately describe how jurors actually think?
Story Models: Constructing Narrative Meaning
Alternatively, the Story Model proposes that jurors don’t just weigh evidence—they construct narratives. They take scattered testimony, physical evidence, and witness accounts and weave them into coherent stories that explain what happened. The story that best fits the evidence wins.
Example: In a robbery case, jurors might construct two competing stories. Story A: “The defendant needed money desperately and planned the robbery carefully.” Story B: “The defendant was misidentified by witnesses who saw the real robber only briefly.” Jurors evaluate which story has fewer gaps, inconsistencies, or implausible elements.
Commonsense Justice: When Folk Morality Meets Legal Rules
Sometimes jurors’ innate sense of fairness conflicts with formal legal instructions. Commonsense Justice theory examines how ordinary moral intuitions shape verdicts—even when those intuitions diverge from what the law technically requires.
Example: A defendant technically violated a law but had compelling moral justification. Jurors may acquit despite clear legal guilt because the law seems unjust in this specific case. This is why some defendants facing minor drug possession charges in the 1960s and 70s were acquitted by juries who disagreed with drug criminalization—legal nullification based on commonsense morality.
Group Dynamics: The Deliberation Effect
Individual jurors don’t decide verdicts—groups do. Social Decision Scheme theory explores how initial individual preferences get transformed through discussion. Does the majority always prevail? Do persuasive minorities sometimes shift the group? How does social influence operate when stakes are high?
Example: If 8 jurors initially favor conviction and 4 favor acquittal, what predicts the final verdict? Research shows majority influence is powerful, but occasionally a single dissenter armed with compelling reasoning can flip the entire jury.
Part III: Contemporary Challenges
The final section connects theoretical models to real-world crises. We examine:
Trust and Legitimacy: When judicial confidence reaches 35%—its lowest point in decades—what does that mean for juror decision-making? Do skeptical jurors evaluate evidence more critically? Do they resist legal authority? Recent polling data suggests institutional distrust has measurable consequences for verdict preferences.
Political Polarization in the Jury Box: Experimental studies from 2020-2024 reveal troubling patterns: jurors’ partisan identities influence how they interpret ambiguous evidence, assess witness credibility, and apply legal standards. We examine cases where political identity appears to override evidence—and what that means for the promise of impartial justice.
Generational Shifts in Civic Engagement: Younger jurors bring different expectations, different media consumption habits, and different orientations toward authority. Research on generational divides in jury service shows declining willingness to serve, increased skepticism of law enforcement, and evolving conceptions of civic duty.
The Post-Pandemic Jury Landscape: COVID-19 didn’t just pause jury trials—it may have permanently altered them. Courts now struggle to summon adequate juror pools (sending 675 summonses per trial in 2021, up from 297 in 2019). Remote proceedings raised new questions about fairness and engagement. What does recovery look like when “normal” may never return?
Who This Project Serves
- For General Readers: Understand the human psychology behind jury verdicts and why contemporary social forces threaten this cornerstone democratic institution.
- For Students and Educators: Access comprehensive theoretical frameworks, annotated bibliographies, discussion questions, and teaching resources that make complex jury research accessible and engaging.
- For Legal Practitioners: Discover evidence-based insights about jury psychology that inform trial strategy, voir dire, jury instructions, and deliberation management.
- For Policymakers and Court Administrators: Examine data-driven analysis of institutional challenges facing jury systems and explore evidence-based reforms that address declining participation and eroding trust.
- For Researchers: Engage with a systematic synthesis of six decades of jury scholarship, identifying theoretical gaps and methodological innovations that can advance the field.
The Method: Rigorous Synthesis of Diverse Evidence
This project integrates multiple research traditions:
- Experimental Studies: Controlled laboratory and mock jury experiments that isolate specific variables affecting decision-making
- Archival Analysis: Examination of actual trial records and verdict patterns from real cases
- Survey Research: Large-scale polling data on institutional trust, civic attitudes, and juror experiences
- Theoretical Development: Formal models that predict and explain how psychological, social, and institutional factors shape verdicts
- Contemporary Data: Recent studies (2020-2024) addressing polarization, trust crises, and post-pandemic realities
All empirical claims are grounded in peer-reviewed research, cited with full transparency. When evidence conflicts, we acknowledge disagreement rather than oversimplifying complexity.
A Living Research Project
Unlike static publications, this web-based project evolves as new research emerges. Our Research Updates section tracks ongoing developments in jury psychology, institutional trust, and trial system reforms. As courts grapple with post-pandemic recovery and researchers continue investigating polarization’s effects, this resource incorporates the latest findings to remain current and relevant.
The Urgency of Understanding Juries Now
Jury trials are vanishing. Trust in courts is cratering. Political tribalism is intensifying. Generational change is accelerating. These aren’t abstract academic concerns—they’re existential challenges to a democratic institution that has endured for centuries.
When we understand how jurors actually make decisions, the psychological processes, the social dynamics, the institutional constraints, and the contemporary pressures reshaping judgment, we can better protect this vital mechanism for citizen participation in justice.
This research matters because twelve ordinary people making extraordinary decisions remains one of democracy’s most profound expressions. Understanding how that process works, and what threatens it, is essential for anyone who cares about justice, fairness, and the future of democratic institutions.