Juries in the midst of election season

After reading an article by my esteemed colleague Clint Townson (Litigation, Volume 50, Number 4, Summer 2024), and seeing his conclusions play out in mock jury deliberations as well as hearing about what has gone on in actual juries recently, it seems that it is a unique time to be trying cases in front of juries. Tensions are running high in scores of communities across the country during the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. Many members of each side of the political spectrum believe that seriously harmful consequences will befall the nation if their candidate does not prevail. Heated political arguments ensue in places of work, of worship, bars (which are places of worship for some), sporting events, and even certain family gatherings take on an air of volatility as the election creeps closer and closer. With team red and team blue squaring off in the political world, and polarization becoming the norm, can jury trials during this time be impervious to the political divisiveness and bitter bickering that has become so commonplace? The answer is mostly yes.

After jurors are sworn in, at some point prior to deliberations, they are informed by the Court of their solemn role in assessing the evidence and ultimately coming to a conclusion, oftentimes unanimously. In the deliberation, persuasion occurs, frustration often mounts, and getting 6 or 8 or 12 people to agree on anything is arduous, let alone the fate of a person or company where (usually) skilled lawyers made credible and compelling arguments for each side. Unless the case is a political one, politics rarely enters into the realm of the jury. It is irrelevant. That is not to say that when tensions run high outside the courtroom, arguments in the jury room might get heated pretty quickly since jurors are accustomed to hunkering down and arguing about something meaningful such as a pending election. So while purely political arguments rarely surface in the deliberations, people might seem a tad more on edge and tend to look down upon opposing viewpoints in the midst of a tense presidential race. Jurors are capable of arguing with each other based on the merits of a case, but when partisan-thinking members of the electorate end up on juries and sense someone on the “other side” of their political DNA is similarly on the other side of the case, the temperature could run a little high. Thankfully, if it goes that way, other members of the jury typically remind everyone to take everything down a notch. But before even seating a jury, it might help during voir dire if you simply ask panelists whether they would be able to focus on this case given the tight and for many emotional election.

If I was trying a case, I would not want the jury to be handed the case in the final week of a closely contested election. It introduces an additional element of uncertainty (which already exists) into what is supposed to be an orderly process where reason prevails over extreme emotions. Outside events are never supposed to enter into the sphere of jury decision-making, but jurors are human, and humans are shaped by their experiences and outside events. My faith in the jury system has always been tremendously strong, with an occasional hiccup since nothing is perfect. I have a great deal of faith in letting right-wing conservatives do battle with left-leaning liberals in coming to a fair and just decision. Getting to the ultimate decision in an early November trial could be fierce but at the end of the day Americans will ensure justice is served.