During jury selection, a person’s political leaning has always been one of the foremost predictors of whether they’re more likely to support the plaintiff or defense.  Generally speaking, liberals and Democrats have been more likely to support plaintiffs and conservatives and Republicans have been more likely to support defendants.

In the age of President Donald Trump, that rule of thumb has been turned on its head.  Although the trend may still largely hold true, it’s nowhere near as reliable as it used to be.  During our focus groups, we’ve observed that participants who identify as Trump supporters are not always as defense-oriented as Republicans have been in the past.

So what’s going on here?  It’s no secret that Trump isn’t exactly your typical Republican.  As former House Speaker John Boehner noted recently, Trump isn’t an ideological Republican in the Reagan mold – he’s primarily a populist.

One of the hallmarks of Trump’s presidential campaign was a populist theme that the little guy is getting screwed by the elites, and it’s time for the little guy to fight back.  This allowed Trump to appeal to down-on-their-luck, blue-collar types in a way that “Country Club Republican” candidates such as Mitt Romney never could.

Trump’s populism, you may notice, echoes one of plaintiff attorneys’ favorite themes – standing up for the little guy who’s being taken advantage of by the rich and powerful (be it a person or corporation).  It’s not surprising, then, that voters who responded to Trump’s rhetoric might also be receptive when it’s on behalf of a wronged plaintiff.  While “Country Club Republicans” still overwhelmingly favor defendants, the same can’t be said of Trump Republicans.

So what’s a lawyer to do?  It’s not as simple any more as trying to load the jury with Republicans if you’re a defense lawyer and avoiding them like the plague if you’re representing a plaintiff.  We’ve found that two main attributes can help you distinguish the classic defense-friendly Republicans from the more populist variety: income and education.

In our experience, jurors who have lower household incomes (less than $50,000) and less education (a high school diploma or less) are more amenable to the populist, anti-elite themes preferred by some plaintiff attorneys.  By contrast, wealthier, more educated jurors tend to identify with those elites more so than with aggrieved plaintiffs.

Of course, trends are imperfect predictors, and it is still necessary to question potential jurors closely during voir dire.  A few of the questions we recommend to help identify those with populist leanings include:

• Generally speaking, do you think corporations should be punished more harshly than individuals for similar actions?
• Do you think corporations tend to take advantage of “the little guy”?
• Do you believe hospitals and other corporations put profits ahead of people?

Every case is different, and populist themes may resonate more strongly in some venues than others.  That’s why all of our focus group reports include a detailed demographic analysis tailored to the specific case and trial jurisdiction.  If you’d like to find out more about how our research process can help you identify favorable and unfavorable demographics, please contact Senior Vice President/Partner Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net.