Effective juror profiling methods in voir dire require a focus on more than demographics and gut feelings. Advanced defense teams utilize psychology-based questioning to assess how jurors handle emotions, anchoring, damages, and their own thought processes, then use those profiles to inform their cause and peremptory strikes.
Strategic questions can translate into a practical voir dire framework for the defense that reliably identifies high-risk jurors and ultimately protects against inflated damages.
What questions reveal emotional decision-making patterns in potential jurors?
When jurors are asked to explain an instance in which they made an emotional purchase, it is a reliable way to determine if their emotions take precedence over rational considerations when making decisions. The defense can differentiate between rule-driven and emotion-driven jurors by asking follow-up questions that target levels, on a scale of 0 to 10, for upholding the law even in the face of intense emotions.
How should the defense define juror profiling methods in voir dire?
For the defense, juror profiling methods are structured ways to identify how people think, not just what they say. An advanced voir dire framework profiling focuses on four core domains:
- Emotional persuasion resistance
- Tendency to follow rules versus following feelings
- Susceptibility to anchoring and counter-anchoring techniques
- Views on severe damages and broader economic impact
The goal is to identify actionable categories: jurors who reliably follow parameters and the law, jurors who predictably default to emotion, and jurors who are primed to resist inflated damages. These profiles then drive who the defense fights to keep, strike, and how to frame cause challenges.
Profile Emotional Persuasion Resistance During Voir Dire
Emotional profiling can start with a relatable, non-threatening money story that mirrors what jurors will face in deliberations. A good example is a father carefully shopping for his son’s first car, but he abandons his budget when his son falls in love with an expensive model.
The attorney discloses their own failures first: “I had a plan, I abandoned it, and I paid for it.” Then, they ask jurors for similar stories related to a significant purchase. With this, two predictable profiles will emerge.
Emotion-driven jurors will admit “they got me,” describe blowing the budget, and acknowledge they often follow feelings over rules. Rule-driven jurors proudly describe holding the line: “I set the number and stuck to it, even if my kid or spouse was upset.”
The defense is not chasing the “right” answer; it is simply observing patterns. Determine who normalizes emotional decision-making with money and who treats parameters as non-negotiable. In high-damages cases where plaintiff attorneys will press for emotional decision-making, that distinction is critical.
Use Scales and Follow-Ups to Improve Risk Assessment
Once jurors have shared their stories, convert the answers into measurable profiles using a simple 0–10 confidence scale.
“On a range from 0–10, how confident are you that you can follow the law and the judge’s instructions, even when you feel strong emotions about the case?”
This turns vague assurances into concrete data points. A juror who proudly told a story about ignoring their own budget and giving themselves a “10” on following the law is giving you a self-image, not predictable behavior. A juror who admits “I’m probably a 4 or 5. Emotion gets to me.” is more candid but also more dangerous in a high damages case.
Use follow-up questions when needed, to lock in the profile:
“Tell me more about why you chose that number.”
“In a situation where you felt sympathy but the law pointed the other way, which wins out for you?”
The goal is to build a record that this juror either struggles to prioritize the law over feelings (might be able to use a for-cause challenge to remove them because they do not follow the law as instructed) or reliably treats parameters as binding (potential keeper).
Profile Jurors’ Reactions to Anchoring and Counter-Anchoring
The anchor, a cognitive bias that has a significant influence on decision-making (especially in courtrooms), is the second major profiling category. The defense can use anchoring (the psychological tendency to rely excessively on a single piece of information when making decisions) to identify jurors who will treat the first damages number they hear as a reference point.
Even when the plaintiff’s attorney requests objectively excessive damages, jurors still use those numbers as anchors and award more serious damages accordingly. Because this pattern consistently appears in jury research studies and real-world trials, plaintiff attorneys will continue to exploit high anchors unless the defense actively disrupts this tactic.
The defense cannot neutralize plaintiff anchors without first exposing and discussing the tactic in voir dire.
Juror profiling methods for anchoring can start with a salary or negotiation example:
“Who has ever asked for more money in a salary negotiation than you actually expected to get, just to end up where you really wanted?”
If jurors acknowledge they have used this tactic themselves, you have “opened the file” in their minds. Then, you can connect it to the trial:
“If a lawyer did that with a damages number in a case like this, how would you feel about that tactic?”
“Do you see it as smart negotiating, or as playing mind games with a jury?”
Now the attorney can separate the jurors:
Jurors who view high anchors as a legitimate strategy and are comfortable with very large numbers.
Jurors who see high anchors as manipulative and are skeptical of extreme asks.
Then test a counter-anchor to determine which jurors will label the defense a “lowballer”:
“You will likely hear a very high number from the other side. You may also hear a smaller number from me, based on what I believe the evidence supports. Who here hears a lower number from a defense lawyer and immediately thinks, ‘They’re just lowballing’?”
The answers help defense attorneys identify jurors who are unwilling to treat your number as a good-faith perspective, even after a clear explanation. That is a high-risk profile for any defense case that needs to provide a counter number.
How to profile jurors’ attitudes about social inflation and community impact?
Another profiling category is attitudes toward significant damage awards and their broader effect on society.
Although attorneys cannot mention insurance, premiums, or coverage during voir dire or trial, you can discuss the broader economic consequences of large verdicts by framing the issue as community impact:
“When you see very large verdicts in the news, do you think those awards eventually affect the cost of goods and services for everyone, or do you see no connection at all?”
“Who here believes high damage awards can create ripple effects in the local community? Who thinks they stay contained to the parties in the case?”
Jurors who flatly deny any connection between repeated large awards and economic consequences are more likely to be comfortable with outsized numbers. Jurors who see a community-wide impact are more receptive to arguments about proportionality and fairness.
The purpose is not to get a unanimous answer. It is to plant the “consequences” frame before anyone mentions a dollar figure and to identify jurors whose worldview already includes concern about economic ripple effects. That profile aligns more naturally with defense themes about reasonable, evidence-based damages.
Turn Profiles Into Concrete Voir Dire Decisions
Juror profiling methods only matter if they drive decisions. A disciplined approach moves voir dire away from “liking” or “relating to” a juror and toward evidence-based risk assessment, grounded in how jurors actually think about emotion, money, and societal consequences.
After using the question sequences, the defense should be able to sort jurors into clear categories.
Strike Candidates
- Admit that emotion routinely overrides rules in money decisions
- Embrace very high anchors as acceptable negotiation tactics
- Reject the idea that large awards affect anyone beyond the parties
Cause-Challenge Candidates
- Openly state they could not follow the law if it conflicts with what they believe is fair
- Indicate low confidence (e.g., 0–3) in resisting emotional appeals
Potential Keepers
- Describe consistent rule-following in high-stakes decisions
- Express skepticism of anchoring tactics from either side
- Acknowledge concern about the broader economic impact of repeated large awards
Efficient Juror Profiling Techniques with Courtroom Sciences
Integrate psychology-based juror profiling methods into your voir dire and trial strategy. Our consultants design targeted voir dire questions, conduct focus groups, and turn juror data into actionable insights for defense teams.
Courtroom Sciences helps attorneys efficiently navigate litigation by providing psychological expertise, science-backed data, and expert support for all phases of litigation. Learn how CSI’s litigation consulting experts can improve outcomes for your next case.
Speak with one of our experts to get started.
By Courtroom Sciences, based on insights from the Litigation Psychology Podcast, Episode #259 – Voir Dire Rewired: A Neurocognitive Approach – Part 2 of 4
Be confident in achieving superior litigation outcomes. CSI has the expertise, track record, and capabilities to help you win.
