Considering the Implications of the 2024 Presidential Election for Jurors in White Collar Cases

Over the past eight years, with our nation more polarized than at almost any other time in history, political affiliation and orientation (ie conservative/liberal) have emerged as powerful predictors of attitudes on nearly every important social issue. We have previously explored the impact of these factors on verdict voting in white collar cases and found that there is indeed a strong relationship.

We’re still considering case data from the Biden years, but we’re guessing we’re now on the brink of another upset. Tensions and anxiety continue to rise and much of our national discourse remains more negative than positive.

What does all this mean for juror decision making in white collar cases? In particular, we consider three questions:

1. Will the kinds of stress we’re experiencing now affect jurors’ decision-making?
2. What implications will the recent election have on jurors’ trust in government and how will it affect their perception of white-collar prosecution?
3. Will the trial and therefore the outcome of the jury’s deliberations be affected by the extreme political polarization in our nation today?

It is too early to answer these questions. Rather, we consider them here as illustrations of the need to grapple with our new political and social context. Our country has changed, and we speculate on the implications of some of these changes for the behavior of jurors in white-collar crime cases.

A nation of jurors under stress

In an American Psychological Association poll a month before the election, nearly 80 percent of Republicans and Democrats reported the country’s future as a “significant source of stress” in their lives and listed politics as their top current stressor. (APA, Stress in America, 2024. ) The second biggest stressor was the economy (73%), followed by the presidential election (69%). The political climate had profound personal implications; about two-thirds (64%) said they felt their “rights are under attack.”

Psychology teaches us that decision-making can be impaired under conditions of high stress. We find it harder to access the information we need, we tend to think reflexively rather than analytically, we see a narrower range of options, and we are more likely than usual to be impulsive.

In jurors, this can translate into a willingness to convict without giving the evidence due consideration. Jurors may also be concerned about an uncertain future. Prosecutors can exploit these vulnerabilities by focusing on the societal harms white-collar crime imposes: it undermines the safety of the American economy or marketplace; makes Americans question whether they can trust those who manage their money, etc. These themes play a role in the vulnerabilities of jurors under stress.

The defender, on the other hand, can mitigate the effects of stress by naming the elephant in the room, so to speak. Recognizing the unusual times we live in, at least in the short term, and the emotional impact it has can help jurors tune into their own emotional states and bring them somewhat to the damaging impact of those states.

Trust in the DOJ and the views of white-collar prosecutions

A July 2024 Pew poll measured Americans’ views of the US Department of Justice, among other agencies. While Democrats’ views were little changed from 12 months earlier — about 55 percent had a favorable view — Republicans’ views were largely negative and in decline. (Cerda, A., Americans View Many Federal Agencies Favorably, But Republicans Grow More Critical of Justice Department. Pew Research Center 12 Aug 2024.

Jurors who follow the news know that the DOJ is a very charged topic in the new administration. The Department’s involvement in the prosecution of our future president has captured the attention of the American public.

As of February 2024, a majority (59%) of Americans had heard “a lot” about the federal case involving the 2020 election and the events of January 6, 2021, and about half had heard a lot about each of the other two. pending federal cases against Trump. Not surprisingly, reactions to these cases are divided along partisan lines. For each of the three investigations, more than 70 percent of Democrats thought they were being handled fairly. Comparable rates for Republicans were 16 percent or lower. (Ballard, J., What Americans Think About the Charges Against Donald Trump in Four Cases,

In the coming months, and perhaps even longer, jurors aware of these events, as well as the ongoing controversy surrounding Trump’s convictions in New York State, will likely have their opinions on future prosecutions affected by that political context. Democrats and liberals are likely to bring an additional degree of skepticism to the consideration of white-collar cases, perhaps seeing decisions about who to indict or not to indict as politically charged. Instead, Republicans and conservatives will likely have more confidence in the Justice Department’s decision-making than they have in the past few years and resume the more persuasive trend we saw in Trump’s first term .

Political polarization and jury deliberations

The polarization in our society that has been building for about a decade shows no signs of going away. Much of it focuses on political affiliation; in fact, a 2017 study from Stanford University found that Americans’ attachment to their political parties is stronger than their connection to other social identifiers such as gender, race, religion, language, or ethnicity. (Stanford Report, Americans’ Partisan Identities Are Stronger Than Race and Ethnicity, Stanford Scholar Finds. 31 Aug. 2017,

Researchers point out that one manifestation of this strong sense of partisanship is an equally strong sense of animosity toward those with opposing views. None of us would find it hard to believe after a few months. Now imagine a group of 12 strangers, thrown together by fate and a jury wheel, spending days and weeks together talking during breaks. Almost any social issue that is discussed can reveal political fault lines, and jurors will likely find that they are not a homogenous group. While SDNY’s three largest counties had strong Democratic majorities in the presidential election, the District was still divided. Twenty-seven percent of the Bronx, 37 percent of Westchester, 43 percent of Putnam, and 45 percent of Rockland voted for Trump in 2024.

These divided jurors will also likely have divided opinions about proper business practices, corporate responsibility and the very wealthy, among other topics. We would normally expect such diverse groups to make better decisions than homogeneous ones. Research consistently shows that a wider range of perspectives encourages deeper analysis, challenging assumptions, and more critical thinking.

But at a time when some worry about whether civil discourse can survive in our nation, political polarization may prove the exception to that rule. I wouldn’t be surprised if we start to see jury deliberations break down more frequently when people of different political persuasions can’t come to an agreement and refuse to compromise on principle. We may start to see more hung juries. This is something defense counsel must consider in cases where a hung jury is the defense’s best case scenario: intentional political diversification of the jury could become a strategic move to help achieve that outcome.

Where do we go from here?

The biggest takeaway from this analysis for litigants is the importance of knowing jurors. The more you know about their political affiliation and orientation, pre- and post-election knowledge and attitudes, emotional state (especially after the election), and beliefs about government, the better you’ll be able to identify jurors who need to be struck and to help the remaining jurors to reckon with their own feelings and set aside those which might interfere with impartiality. Supplemental juror questionnaires and properly conducted juror Internet searches are more important now than ever.

Much of our focus here is on how jurors will behave in the short term as the nation regains its balance (or not) after this highly contentious election. In the coming months, we will continue to address this topic and conduct a survey of juror attitudes about white collar crime that addresses this topic head-on. We hope that these data will further elucidate the implications of policy changes for white-collar cases and help us think about longer-term implications as well.

Ellen Brickman, Ph.D. is a director at DOAR