Litigants are typically interested in learning about a prospective juror’s political orientation during the jury selection process. This line of thinking is that if one’s general political leaning is deduced then other specific litigation-related attitudes become apparent that reveal insights into how a juror will render a verdict. For example, aren’t Republicans typically tougher on criminals and therefore good for the prosecution? In the civil arena, won’t Democrats be more prone to awarding higher damages?

In 2008, I conducted a study, published in For The Defense, to determine if political leaning was predictive of whether a juror would award money, and if it was, was the amount of the damage award also related to political orientation. The short answer is political leaning was not predictive of either the propensity to award damages or the amount. Yet attorneys continue to try and ask potential jurors what bumper stickers they have on their car to gain insight into their political outlook. Fast forward 8 years to the election that just ended. Can we predict the type of juror one would make based on which candidate they voted for? As the post-election data pours in, after the pundits, media and political analysts were way off in their predictions, I am being asked whether there is such a thing as a “Trump juror,” and what implications that would mean for a trial.

As a jury consultant, any information is good information, so I would be happy to know whether a prospective juror voted for Trump or Clinton, even though this information would not be crucial. But like most other inquiries in voir dire, I would want to ask the key open-ended follow up “Why?” question after knowing which candidate they supported. But this is unrealistic as most Judges rightfully shut questioning down when attorneys try and determine who a potential juror voted for, let alone why. The privacy and sanctity of the voting booth is the priority. But what if we were able to ascertain someone’s political leaning before selecting a jury?

While generalities are misguided when trying to characterize a Trump supporter, there is an archetype Trump voter that was overlooked during this election. And “overlooked” is the key defining term. When looking at personality dimensions, the most common trait among core Trump supporters is the feeling that they have been left behind, that no one speaks for them, and that they have had their voice taken from them. They are seeking empowerment and desperately need a voice. This yearning for a champion of the downtrodden is so fierce that this group was willing to let a New York Billionaire, who lives very close to Wall Street, be the person who is going to hear its voice.

So what message would resonate with this type of juror?  What type of juror would this nativist Trump juror be like? This type of juror tends to respect authoritarian personalities and is more law and order than your average juror. Throughout history, people with few educational or economic resources and little bargaining power have often looked to authoritarian, ruthless people to stand up for them. As one of Trump’s female supporters explained to a reporter, “Trump is the kind of bully you get to beat up the people who have bullied you.” And after all, with all of the problems in this country and everyone else making gains, good solid law enforcement will prevent “others” from taking advantage of the system. This juror would tend to be pro-prosecution in a standard criminal case.

But in a civil case, a strong Trump juror might want to send a message against a large company that is seen as part of the establishment. A Trump supporter may tend to think Corporate Executives are all part of the foundations that have “rigged” the system against people like them, so a large verdict might get their attention to make the American working landscape great again. If I was defending a large corporation I would be wary of someone who felt disrespected by the establishment, as this person might feel that a high damage verdict could get the attention of people who have ignored their feelings of exclusion. After all, if this juror was sitting on a case where a large drug company was accused of hiding information about its drugs from the public in order to maximize profits, the theme “Make medicine safe again” would probably resonate.