How Plaintiff Attorneys Are Using Search Results to Influence Jury Selection

May 19, 2025

In the modern courtroom, technology has added a new layer to an age-old process. Jury selection, once confined to a few questions in a wood-paneled courtroom, now includes Google searches, background checks, and deep dives into social media. What was once limited to the courtroom has expanded into the digital world, and that shift has changed everything for plaintiff attorneys.

Imagine walking into court as a lawyer, looking at a panel of strangers in the jury box, knowing you only have a few minutes to determine who might be fair—or who might quietly carry a bias that could derail your entire case. Today, attorneys don’t rely solely on instinct or responses during voir dire. They investigate potential jurors online, searching for posts, affiliations, and even casual opinions that could hint at prejudice or loyalty. And this digital scouting has become as standard as filing motions or questioning witnesses.

What Is Jury Selection, and Why Does It Matter?

Jury selection is the first major step in any trial, whether criminal or civil. The process—called voir dire—involves questioning prospective jurors to uncover biases, experiences, or beliefs that could influence how they interpret the facts.

Jurors are often randomly selected from jury lists compiled using registered voters and driver’s licenses. They receive a jury summons from the court clerk, requiring them to appear in court. Once assembled, the jury pool is narrowed down into a jury panel. Attorneys and the trial judge ask questions, and both sides can eliminate certain individuals through peremptory challenges or for cause. The goal? To seat a panel of qualified jurors who can listen to the evidence and deliver a verdict without bias.

In capital cases—where life imprisonment or the death penalty is on the line—or in emotionally charged civil cases, the stakes are especially high. That’s why the ability to analyze public data about a juror’s background can be a game-changer.

How Search Results Factor Into the Jury Selection Process

Before the trial begins, lawyers often research potential jurors online. While sitting in the courtroom, attorneys look at phones and laptops, scanning LinkedIn profiles, Facebook posts, news articles, and Google search results.

The reasoning is simple: what people share online often reveals more than they say aloud in court. A post on social justice, a news article shared about the criminal justice system, or a LinkedIn endorsement could sway an attorney’s perception during jury selection procedures.

Example: A prospective juror in a product liability case shares an Instagram story mocking people who file lawsuits. That insight might never come up during voir dire, but it could make a critical difference when deciding who should sit on the jury.

This type of digital research helps attorneys:

• Confirm or challenge what jurors say in court
• Tailor their voir dire questions more precisely
• Make smarter peremptory strike decisions
• Prevent deliberations from being swayed by hidden bias

Using Social Media and Google Searches to Evaluate Jurors

Social media is often a treasure trove of information. During the jury selection process, attorneys might:

• Review Facebook likes, tweets, or shared articles
• Look for ties to advocacy groups
• Search for prior legal experiences
• Check professional affiliations

They may also use public records databases to uncover lawsuits, criminal backgrounds, or district affiliations. In some jurisdictions, plaintiff attorneys even run searches during voir dire to see how active a juror is politically or whether they’ve posted opinions about similar cases.

Attorneys don’t just search randomly—they’re strategic. They cross-reference answers given in court with online profiles to detect inconsistencies. If a person claims neutrality on an issue but publicly aligns with a strong opinion online, that inconsistency might lead to a peremptory challenge.

Balancing Strategy with Ethics in Jury Research

This growing practice isn’t without controversy. Using social media and search tools to evaluate jurors raises serious ethical questions.

• Are attorneys invading privacy?
• Can online opinions unfairly disqualify someone?
• Where does the court draw the line?

The American Bar Association and various bar associations, like the New York City Bar Association, have released guidance on how far attorneys can go. The rule of thumb? Don’t deceive. Don’t friend request. Don’t interact with jurors online. And absolutely do not use any hidden or confidential databases.

In some cases, judges’ instructions now remind jurors that attorneys may view their public profiles and that they should not engage in or collect information in deceptive ways.

Real Consequences: When Digital Research Goes Too Far

There have been documented cases where the use of search tools during jury selection has led to mistrials, complaints, and even disciplinary action. In one case, an attorney was sanctioned for using a fake profile to access a juror’s restricted LinkedIn information. In another case, a plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to disclose juror research led to a retrial.

If digital research uncovers prejudicial information after a juror is seated—like misconduct or undeclared bias—it can compromise the verdict and even reverse the outcome on appeal.

How Plaintiff Attorneys Strategically Use This Data

Plaintiff attorneys are especially attuned to jury composition. In personal injury or civil rights cases, the emotional resonance of the case often hinges on the values and experiences of the jury.

Using tools like Google, Facebook, and public databases, attorneys:

• Study demographic trends from past jury trials
• Analyze political affiliations or previous posts that suggest prejudice
• Adjust opening statements based on juror psychology
• Avoid jurors with strong opinions against lawsuits or litigation culture

Attorneys also use what they find to justify peremptory challenges or shape questions asked during voir dire. In many cases, this proactive effort is what gives the plaintiff a fighting chance against a large defendant or corporate party.

The Limitations of What Search Results Can Show

While online data offers useful context, it’s not a complete picture. People often curate their digital lives. A juror’s profile might not reflect how they’ll behave in the courtroom or during deliberations.

That’s why experienced lawyers combine digital research with instincts, courtroom observations, and deep knowledge of jury dynamics. The best outcomes happen when attorneys balance digital insights with the human side of trial work.

Final Thoughts: The Digital Shift in Jury Selection

The way we approach selecting jurors has changed. What began as a verbal process in the nineteenth century has evolved into a multi-dimensional strategy involving online research, psychology, and legal acumen.

Today, jury service still rests on the principle of fairness. But fairness in the digital age means using every legal tool to ensure the jury panel can weigh the facts without hidden bias. For plaintiff attorneys, that means knowing who’s in the jury box before the trial starts.

When done ethically and strategically, digital research during jury selection doesn’t undermine justice—it supports the pursuit of a fair trial for all.

Free Mugshot Removal Analysis