Is There a Bias Against Education in the Jury Selection Process?

Abstract

We analyze thirty jury selections in the District of Connecticut for evidence that juries are relatively undereducated compared to the venires from which they are chosen. Contrary to popular lay and scholarly belief, neither judges nor attorneys appear to systematically excuse or exclude relatively well-educated potential jurors.

We conclude that juries are not relatively undereducated compared to venires. Further, the mean education level of juries in our sample is actually higher than the mean of members of society (as represented by U.S. Census data for the State of Connecticut).

Finally, we conclude that (1) further studies should be performed in jurisdictions with different selection procedures; and (2) it is unnecessary for courts to adopt radical proposals designed to ensure that juries are not undereducated relative to venires (or to society as a whole). This study reinforces our belief that any policy analysis should include empirical study and attention to practical literature, both of which have been missing in the scholarly debate over education levels of juries.

Keywords: Juries, jurors, education, empirics, empirical