ABSTRACT
The jury selection procedure was designed to identify jurors who might be biased and to exclude them from juries. Traditional jury selection procedures rest on two assumptions: that people are aware of and willing to (a) admit and (b) control their biases when directly asked to do so in court. We review psychological science demonstrating that these assumptions are flawed and offer scientifically guided policy recommendations to help the courts seat more fair, impartial, and representative juries. Part 1 reviews how modern forms of bias have evolved, such that people still harbor bias but are often unaware or unwilling to admit it, and identifies scientifically supported ways to most effectively assess bias in court. Part 2 reviews the likely ineffectiveness of popular interventions that ask jurors or attorneys to control their own biases. It also presents evidence for empirically supported structural interventions to manage and mitigate the impact of jurors’ and attorneys’ biases that persist.