This article is the sixth in a series based on the results of a recent Jury Impact survey 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 34 and younger.

Criminal history, lax healthcare compliance, Facebook party photos of bongs and booze – it can be easy to identify ill-advised life choices by plaintiffs and be tempted to trot out these items in front of a jury if you think it might produce a negative bias.  

But it’s crucial to consider your jury composition before you do so, as it might backfire among younger jurors.  Our recent survey included a question about whether it would be fair to introduce information about a plaintiff’s history of drug use or criminal activity.  That answer – 55 percent believe such information is fair game, and the other 45 percent said they would be offended – was consistent across all age groups.Similarly, about two-thirds of participants indicated it is appropriate to use the plaintiff’s social media postings as evidence.

Respondents were also asked how learning such information would affect their opinion about a case if they were “on the fence” about their verdict.  Overall, 55 percent of the respondents said it wouldn’t matter (47 percent of millennials and 59 percent of those 35 and older).  The number who said it would make them more likely to side with the defense was even more consistent (27 percent overall, 24 percent of millennials and 28 percent of 35-plus respondents).

Where the age divide manifested itself was in responses about whether the defense’s decision to include supposedly damaging personal information would make jurors more likely to find for the plaintiff.  Just 13 percent of 35-plus participants chose that option, in contrast with a full 29 percent of millennials.  This seems to echo the fallout we have observed in coverage of the police shootings of civilians – the civilian’s background doesn’t matter, especially when it wouldn’t have been known to the officer.  All that matters is that the civilians, or in the cases of our lawsuits, the plaintiffs, were treated unfairly.

These findings may give you pause when you decide how much to dig into the plaintiff’s background – and whether to use what you find.  To discuss with us how jurors in one of your upcoming cases might respond to information about a plaintiff’s lifestyle choices, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010 to find out how we can help.