Bias against “marginal” individuals in jury wheel selection

Abstract

The choice of potential jurors from the population to fill jury wheels in the United States may be accomplished by purposive selection (primarily by using “key man” systems) or by random selection (from voter registration, tax rolls, or other lists). In this study it was hypothesized that individuals who were “marginal” to mainstream values would be excluded from jury wheels more often than individuals more “central” to community norms and that nonrandom selection would be more exclusionary than random methods, with some random methods more exclusionary than others. A mail survey of both a key man jury wheel and hypothetical jury wheels drawn from voter registration and tax assessment lists was conducted in one judicial district total N = 2,058. Significant bias existed against females, the young, the elderly, blacks, singles, nonvoters, recent migrants to the community, those not in the work force, and individuals of low occupational prestige. Thus the data consistently showed exclusion of marginal individuals from jury wheels. The key man wheel was found to include more repeat jurors who would not request excusal from jury service. The history of jury wheels is discussed and an analysis of future options available for choosing jury wheels is presented.