This article is the fourth 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.
For millennials, “Question Authority” isn’t just a bumper sticker slogan – it’s a way of life. In fact, the term “millennial” seems synonymous with nonconformity. Studies by such well-known institutions as the Pew Research Center have confirmed two of the defining characteristics of millennials we already suspected: Their respect for authority is tenuous at best; and they tend to shun or distrust long-accepted social structures such as marriage.
Our research shows we should add jury service and judges to that list of suspect institutions. The Jury Impact/MFour poll demonstrated millennials are much more likely than older generations to flout a judge’s instructions on a number of issues.
Perhaps that’s because one of this generation’s formative experiences was the Great Recession, the devastating product of an era in which outright lies and “robosigning” were seen as acceptable ways to process and fund home loans. In that context, it’s hard to fault millennials for their mistrust of powerful figures and authority. The popularity of books, movies and television shows such as “The Hunger Games” and “Breaking Bad” reflect millennials’ fondness for antiheroes and challenging the establishment.
It follows, then, that the courts may not win as much respect from a millennial as they did from his or her grandfather. For example, 45 percent of millennial respondents believe it’s acceptable to judge a lawsuit on what they believe to be most fair, rather than “the letter of the law.” For those 35 and older, that number plummets to 30 percent.
Another question from our survey asks whether participants would consider lawyer fees while deciding on damages in a trial even when a judge has instructed jurors not to consider those fees. A total of 33 percent of millennials said they would defy the judge’s instructions, compared to just 23 percent of participants 35 and older.
Similarly, 31 percent of millennials said that as trial jurors they would be inclined to use the Internet to do outside research about the case – even when the judge instructs them not to. That number was only 13 percent for those 35 and older. This troubling statistic means that if any of the country’s 80 million millennials are on your jury, they may well be disregarding your highly paid experts in favor of a Wikipedia page or what they can unearth about your witness on Instagram.
With this in mind, millennials clearly need to be regarded with caution during voir dire, especially in a case where a verdict could turn on misinterpretation of a jury instruction or outside research. For assistance in smoking out those who might be inclined to turn a jury charge into jury change, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010 to find out how we can help.
