Exclusion of Extreme Jurors and Minority Representation: The Effect of Jury Selection Procedures

TL;DR

This paper compares two jury selection procedures, Strike and Replace and Struck, analyzing their effectiveness in excluding biased jurors and representing minorities, with implications for fairness and bias mitigation.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of jury selection procedures, highlighting trade-offs between excluding extreme jurors and minority representation, including robustness to discrimination assumptions.

Findings

Struck more effectively excludes extreme jurors.

Strike and Replace better represents minorities under polarization.

Results are robust to statistical discrimination assumptions.

Abstract

We compare two jury selection procedures meant to safeguard against the inclusion of biased jurors that are perceived as causing minorities to be under-represented. The Strike and Replace procedure presents potential jurors one-by-one to the parties, while the Struck procedure presents all potential jurors before the parties exercise their challenges. Struck more effectively excludes extreme jurors but leads to a worse representation of minorities. The advantage of Struck in terms of excluding extremes is sizable in a wide range of cases. In contrast, Strike and Replace better represents minorities only if the minority and majority are polarized. Results are robust to assuming the parties statistically discriminate against jurors based on group identity.