METHODOLOGY
TEST YOUR JURY ASSUMPTIONS
THE RESULTS
WHAT TO DO
INTRODUCTION
Jury pools have changed dramatically. Today’s jurors are younger, with Generation Z (26 years old and younger) serving in higher numbers than ever before while jury service from all other generations is in decline. Today’s jurors reflect our more polarized society – with more firmly held beliefs on politics, social causes, and perceived injustices than in the past. They are also more likely to act on those beliefs by delivering their own sense of justice.
The result? An explosion of “nuclear verdicts,” which are verdicts greater than $10 million. In many instances, these verdicts include huge sums for pain and suffering and massive economic damages that appear to be intended to “send a message” to a perceived wrongdoer, even when no punitive damages are awarded.
We didn’t think it would be smart to head into a courtroom without a fresh understanding of the thought processes, biases, external factors, and motivations that today’s jurors carry with them during their jury service. So we asked them. Orrick’s trial team surveyed more than 1,000 potential jurors from jurisdictions around the country, including the jurisdictions that are home to the largest verdicts. The results of this survey provide key insights into best practices for connecting with today’s jurors.
The upshot? An effective legal defense now more than ever requires trial teams to speak to jurors at an emotional level. Jurors need conviction that a company’s behavior is not just legally correct, but also comfort that the company did the right thing.
METHODOLOGY
Working with nationally recognized jury
consultants, Orrick recently conducted an
online survey of jury-eligible people in
jurisdictions where nuclear verdicts have
been most common over the past decade,
including counties in California, Florida,
Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Missouri, Texas, New Jersey, and New York.
Orrick ensured that the 1,011 people who participated
in the survey reflected the make-up of people who are actually
showing up today for jury service in these jurisdictions, including by
controlling for age, race, occupation, education level, and political affiliation.
Participants were asked to respond to more than 150 questions that gauged their opinions on social issues, politics, ethical principles, and industries frequently targeted by plaintiffs’ firms. They were also asked to explain how they would respond to hypothetical scenarios. The data was then aggregated to identify overall trends, both nationally and specific to particular jurisdictions. When possible, we compared the data to similar pre-pandemic data.
TEST YOUR JURY ASSUMPTIONS
Below are a handful of the questions we asked potential jurors. Their responses may not be what you expected.
How much confidence do
you have in the U.S. justice system nowadays?
In general, what is your impression of lawyers who defend the corporations
sued in lawsuits?
What is your
current opinion of
large corporations?
In general, what is your impression of lawyers
who represent injured
people in lawsuits?
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “If I were a juror in a case, making an emotional connection to the subject matter and the people involved in the trial would be important to me to reach a fully informed decision”?
To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the following statement:
“How a company responds
to a mistake it makes is
as important as the
mistake itself”?
To what extent do you
agree or disagree with
the following statement:
“The color of a person’s skin determines their experience in this country”?
To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the following statement: “I trust 'science' less now than I did before the coronavirus pandemic started”?
Which social media
do you use, if any?
One of the most pronounced trends in the data, across all demographics,
is a distinct lack of trust in institutions.
Only 48% of jurors trust courts today, compared
to 67% pre-pandemic
17% report no
confidence at all in the courts, compared to
8% pre-pandemic
Jurors admitting
bias against police has tripled from
11% pre-pandemic
to 36% today
Anti-corporate
sentiment has doubled from 27% pre-pandemic to 45% today
41% of jurors admit
to trusting science less than they did before
the pandemic
Consistent with declining trust in institutions, jurors are increasingly willing
to turn into activists and take the law into their own hands.
Jurors who believe “the current laws are outdated and
applying them does not consistently serve justice”
PRE-PANDEMIC
today
52%
62%
77%
69%
58%
Jurors who think an “important function” of juries is to
“send messages to corporations to improve their behavior”
Jurors who believe in using punitive
damages to “punish” a corporation
Jurors are also more willing to make snap judgments, even when they know nothing more than who
the parties are. Before the pandemic, when asked hypothetical questions about who they would favor in
a lawsuit in the absence of any specifics about the case, most potential jurors said they would remain
neutral. After the pandemic, most jurors pick a side, and overwhelmingly side with plaintiffs.
PRE-PANDEMIC
today
HYPOTHETICAL: In a lawsuit between an individual
and large corporation, which side would you
probably tend to lean in favor of?
HYPOTHETICAL: In a lawsuit brought by one or more employees
claiming that their employer unlawfully discriminated against them,
which side would you probably tend to lean in favor of?
no opinion
the individual
no opinion
the Employee
61%
33%
59%
33%
63%
23%
67%
26%
JUROR OPINIONS ABOUT LARGE COMPANIES VARY BY SECTOR
Although 45% of potential jurors admit to having a bias against large corporations,
opinions can vary significantly when asked about large corporations in specific sectors.
Pharmaceutical
companies
ENERGY COMPANIES
LARGE BANKS
SOCIAL MEDIA
companies
VERY POSITIVE
VERY NEGATIVE
SOMEWHAT POSITIVE
COMPLETELY NEUTRAL
SOMEWHAT NEGATIVE
12%
14%
24%
23%
27%
13%
15%
25%
17%
30%
14%
14%
27%
17%
28%
15%
20%
28%
9%
28%
WHAT TO DO:
MAKING AN EMOTIONAL CONNECTION WITH JURORS
Today’s jurors are more polarized and more willing to allow their biases to influence their decisions. But they also have more in common than you, or they, might think. Most potential jurors agree that there are “universal” concepts of right and wrong, which have “clear and consistent distinctions” between them. Most potential jurors also agree that “making an emotional connection to the subject matter and the people involved in the trial would be important” before they could make
“a fully informed decision.” We believe that winning trial teams of the future must be able to create these emotional connections, giving jurors comfort that the desired verdict meets their understanding of the “right” outcome.
We bring this insight to courtrooms around the country. In the past 18 months, The American Lawyer has recognized 22 Orrick trial teams for their exceptional work. On the basis of our results, Orrick was the only firm selected by The American Lawyer in 2023 as a finalist for both Litigation Department of
the Year and IP Department of the Year.
ORRICK’S TRIAL TEAMS
To learn more about this study, please contact your Orrick litigation team or:
get in touch
Meghan
Kelly
get in touch
Bill
Oxley
How much confidence do you have in the U.S. justice system nowadays?
A GREAT DEAL
A FAIR AMOUNT
NO OPINION / NEUTRAL
NOT TOO MUCH
NO CONFIDENCE AT ALL
16%
17%
33%
2%
32%
13%
13%
32%
15%
27%
23%
37%
40%
58%
13%
29%
25%
13%
40%
22%
51%
2%
7%
40%
23%
32%
18%
27%
16%
32%
27%
25%
80% FACEBOOK
60% INSTAGRAM
48% TIKTOK
45% TWITTER
41% SNAPCHAT
38% LINKEDIN
30% REDDIT
23% DISCORD
18% NEXTDOOR
VERY POSITIVE
NO OPINION / NEUTRAL
SOMEWHAT POSITIVE
SOMEWHAT NEGATIVE
VERY NEGATIVE
What is your current opinion of
large corporations?
POSITIVE
NO OPINION / NEUTRAL
NEGATIVE
In general, what is your impression of
lawyers who defend the corporations
sued in lawsuits?
NO OPINION / NEUTRAL
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
In general, what is your impression of
lawyers who represent injured
people in lawsuits?
AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE SOMEWHAT
To what extent do you agree or disagree withthe following statement: “If I were a juror in acase, making an emotional connection to the subject matter and the people involved in the
trial would be important to me to reach a fully informed decision”?
DISAGREE STRONGLY
DISAGREE SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE SOMEWHAT
AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE STRONGLY
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “How a company responds to a mistake it makes is as important as the mistake itself”?
DISAGREE SOMEWHAT
AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE STRONGLY
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The color of a person’s skin determines their experience in this country”?
DISAGREE SOMEWHAT
AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE STRONGLY
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement: “I trust 'science' less now than I did before the coronavirus pandemic started”?
Which social media
do you use, if any?
today
PRE-PANDEMIC
