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 2025 Society of Experimental Social Psychology conference, we found that undergraduates and online community members who identified as Black or another minority race or ethnicity were at higher risk of BLM-based exclusion. Thus, attorneys who dismiss potential jurors based on BLM support are likely to disproportionately exclude people of color.

Reducing jury diversity in this way could undermine community representativeness and the perceived legitimacy of jury verdicts—patterns well documented in psychological research. While some courts have recognized the racist implications of challenging Black jurors due to their BLM attitudes (e.g., People v. Silas et al., 2021), others have dodged answering whether BLM questioning is pretext for unconstitutional racial discrimination (e.g., State v. Booker, 2023). Perplexingly, still other courts have opined that, despite their “racial overtones,” questions posed to Black jurors about BLM are “race-neutral” and thus legal (State v. Gresham, 2016, p. 9).

From Attitudes to Acquittals: How Ideology Influences Verdicts

The second concern pertains to impartiality, because, irrespective of juror race, BLM attitudes relate to beliefs about racial equality, police legitimacy, and social order. In our research, participants with less (vs. more) favorable attitudes toward BLM reported higher anti-Black bias, stronger belief in police legitimacy, and greater endorsement of hierarchical social structures.

Our second study included a mock use-of-force trial involving a police officer defendant who fatally shot a Black woman. Although very favorable BLM attitudes did not predict verdicts, less favorable BLM attitudes were significantly related to pro-police defendant/anti-Black victim verdicts. Moreover, controlling for their race, mock jurors who were less favorable toward BLM were more likely to acquit the police officer because they endorsed more anti-Black implicit bias and legal authoritarianism.

Rethinking Voir Dire from a Psychological Science Perspective

The practice of asking potential jurors about their BLM attitudes during voir dire raises significant issues for courts and legal practitioners. Relying on racial justice movement-based attitudes to infer juror bias invites debate about constitutional protections for equal treatment and limits on peremptory challenges—especially within a legal system already riddled with threats to jury representativeness.

Indeed, even if prosecutors strike prospective jurors with less favorable BLM attitudes to counter the defense, defense challenges will still disproportionately shape the jury’s racial composition because jurors of color are already underrepresented. Further, to the extent that BLM attitudes signal broader narratives about racial equity relevant to evidence interpretation, excluding pro-BLM jurors may skew deliberations toward upholding existing power structures. In trials involving alleged police misconduct, this could manifest as failure to hold police accountable for violence that disproportionately harms Black people.

These issues underscore the need for psychological science-informed trial procedures. Expert testimony may help courts understand how social attitudes and ideology impact decision-making. Researchers can continue examining these relations, test reforms that reduce discrimination and bias, and submit amicus briefs in appellate cases to inform courts about the science on these issues.

Ultimately, ensuring that juries are representative and impartial requires an evidence-based approach to voir dire that integrates psychological insights with a commitment to justice and equity.

Cynthia J. Najdowski is Associate Professor, University at Albany, Department of Psychology. Margaret C. Stevenson is Associate Professor, Kenyon College, Department of Psychology. Edited by Ashley M. Votruba, J.D., Ph.D., SPSSI Blog Editor, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today