This is the first in a series of articles based on the results of a recent survey Jury Impact conducted in conjunction with our sister company, MFour Mobile Research. This survey was fielded in July with 543 jury-eligible respondents throughout the United States. “Millennials” include all respondents age 34 and younger.
Between the constant selfies and perceptions of entitlement among millennials, it’s easy to believe this age group is far more concerned with “throwing shade” than caring about others. However, when it comes to evaluating the merits of lawsuits and damages claims, their sympathetic nature and desire to help the underdog makes them troubling jurors for the defense.
During our recent survey, millennials were far more likely to agree that sympathy would affect their verdict in a case – even if a judge told them it shouldn’t. For this question, 46 percent of millennials answered in the affirmative, compared with just 36 percent of those 35 and older. Both numbers are troubling, but the fact that millennials are 1.3 times more likely to ignore a judge’s authority and base their verdict on sympathy for the injured begins to tear at the image of self-centered youths who think more about Pokémon than plaintiffs. This statistic shows clear compassion for a person in need, regardless of their actual right to receive damages under the law.
This desire to help the underdog stems in part from the literature that formed the foundation of millennial childhoods, including the Harry Potter series, in which a poor, orphaned wizard brings down the powerful elite. We see this behavior often during our focus group research, as millennials are far more likely to overlook plaintiffs’ mistakes, or personal responsibility, based on the perspective that if these jurors were “in their shoes,” they would expect similar empathetic treatment. From the data Jury Impact has collected during the past decade of research, respondents younger than 30 made up the smallest percentage of those who voted for the defense, at just 17.4 percent.
More data from this survey will be discussed in the coming weeks, including how millennials (and jurors in general) view Internet research during trial, corporations as defendants and the impact of the Affordable Care Act on healthcare.
For assistance in spotting within your venire the sympathetic millennial with a desire to empty the defendant’s pockets, or the types of cases that will most appeal to their sense of “David vs. Goliath” justice, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010 to find out how we can help.
