Jury Research Blog

With all the buzz about AI, or more specifically, the combination of AI, large language models (LLMs), and natural language processing (NLP) that is the basis of ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Google’s Bard, it is natural to consider the impact of these tools on trial consulting.

While once a rarity, internet research on potential jurors in advance of trial has become fairly commonplace. Research companies, like Vijilent, have brought to bear sophisticated tools to assist attorneys in their efforts to understand the potential jurors they face. This is fortunate, since research has shown that such research companies are far superior to attorneys and law firms in finding social media accounts of potential jurors. While establishing and analyzing jurors’ social media pages is a necessary and important first step, does that give us the most complete picture of who our jurors are? Is this their overall juror internet footprint?

In many, if not most, jurisdictions, the list of potential jurors is made available to the parties at some point before the day jury selection begins. As a trial consultant, I am often called upon to conduct research on potential jurors before trial. This research consists of general Internet searches and utilizing sources like social media (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Instagram), news media, publicly available databases (e.g., political contributions, parties in civil lawsuits, housing values, and other public records, etc.), and any custom databases developed specifically for the litigation. Discussions of these activities can be found in chapter 8, “Jurors and the Internet,” of my book Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection.

However, what happens when you don’t get the jury list until the day of trial?

The impact of the internet on jury trials has been dramatic, both in terms of jury selection (e.g., conducting internet searches on potential jurors, monitoring of jurors’ social media accounts, and identifying jurors’ activities on news media social media posts) and the potential for jurors to engage in inappropriate online activities (e.g., searching for case related information, following media coverage, and seeking legal definitions). While both areas are important, the first of these developments will be our focus here.

It is becoming fairly commonplace for trial consultants, attorneys, and other entities to search for potential jurors’ social media presence. However, limiting internet investigations of potential jurors to traditional “Google searches,” Westlaw or similar databases, and searches of social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, among others, misses an underutilized, but important resource—news media postings on social media.