We’re hearing this a lot lately. For example, attitudes toward the health care reform debate “vary along traditional partisan lines”. And it makes us wonder about juries.

The holy grail of jury selection is that some simple and visible attitude or affiliation will identify the good and the bad.  For years, what trial consultants have said is that “demographics don’t make the difference, values and attitudes is what makes the difference”. We’ve said it repeatedly. But now we’re starting to wonder.

We know liberals and conservatives punish differently (download an article in pdf format here). We know that the more religious you are, the more you want to punish the perpetrator of a victimless crime (and see our blog post). We have tended to think of political affiliation as a demographic descriptor that was akin to checking off the box that reflects your age range. But things have changed a lot and now “reactions vary along traditional partisan lines”.

In fact, the more things change the more they are the same.  What has happened in the polarization of politics is that a political party has, for many, become far more than affiliation.  It is code for certain types of strongly held beliefs, because Republicans and (to a much lesser extent) Democrats are intolerant of dissenting in the ranks.  To be a strong supporter of the Republican party at this point speaks to identifying with an attitude toward tort reform, the Iraq War, healthcare reform, and the most likely patrons of Fox News and talk radio.  Democrats like to say that they “have a big tent”, but in truth what they mean is “we are united in opposition to Republicans, and not much else”.  So Democrats may be supporters of the party while being opposed to abortion rights, healthcare reform, or the end to the death penalty.

The question remains focused on values and beliefs.  But sometimes affiliations can provide a window into those beliefs.   When you are developing a voir dire strategy, or assembling case themes for trial, ask yourself some crucial questions:

• To whom does this juror prefer listening—  Rush Limbaugh or Barack Obama?
• If this juror supports my position, will they be cheered by their friends and family, or will they have to do some painful explaining?
• Are the central themes of this case consistent with the values of this juror?
• Taking the juror as the were during the month or year before they came into this courtroom, is supporting my case something in which they would naturally take pride?

Sometimes the obvious variable captures the range of values that are most important in your case, but beware.  Little in life is really that simple.

Related posts:

1. Who do ‘they’ believe?
2. I can’t hear you!
3. An uncivil union: Being ‘heard’
4. On Hispanic Jurors: Religiosity and Values
5. The Jury Room: A new blawg

1. Wendy Saxon says:

   September 7, 2009 at 10:58 AM

   I find this extremely “well put” and helpful, in emphasizing to my lawyers that party affiliation is CURRENTLY akin to “deeply held” values, beliefs, and convictions. Never before (at least since the Vietnam confilct) have so many potential jurors felt so directly and immediately threatened by perceived agendas on BOTH sides.