Prospective jurors at risk for being removed for supporting BLM are disproportionately people of color.

Jurors with less favorable BLM views report higher anti-Black bias.

Jurors with less favorable BLM views are more prone to acquit police who use fatal force against Black people.

Evidence-based voir dire reforms are needed to prevent discrimination and ensure impartial juries.

By Cynthia J. Najdowski and Margaret C. Stevenson

Before criminal jury trials in the United States, attorneys question potential jurors during voir dire, seeking to exclude individuals who may be biased—and those they believe may not favor their position—from trial participation. In recent years, especially when police officers are charged with crimes, this process has increasingly involved asking potential jurors about their attitudes toward the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. However, this practice may reduce jury representativeness and facilitate biased verdicts, important issues that can be informed by psychological science.

When BLM Becomes a Jury Filter

The first concern is representativeness. National polling shows that attitudes toward BLM vary by race and ethnicity, with more individuals of racial and ethnic minorities than White individuals expressing support for the movement.

Consistent with this, in two studies we presented at the........

© Psychology Today