Lawyers using peremptory strikes to hand-pick a jury do not actually make the trial feel more legitimate to the people being sued.
April 25, 2026
Original Paper
Rethinking Jury Selection
SSRN · 6641878
The Takeaway
The legal system assumes that giving parties the power to exclude certain jurors increases trust in the process. Mock trials show that removing potential jurors through these strikes has no measurable impact on how litigants view the fairness of the outcome. This power is a fundamental part of trial strategy, yet it fails its primary psychological goal. Lawyers are essentially performing a ritual that adds time and complexity without improving the perceived justice of the system. Reforming jury selection could save significant resources without sacrificing the legitimacy of the courts. The selection process is an expensive tradition with no empirical backing.
From the abstract
<div> Given the vital role of juries in our judicial system, the process by which courts select jurors has been a source of significant Supreme Court litigation. Courts have traditionally justified peremptory strikes, which allow parties to exclude prospective jurors for any reason, on the assumption that litigants will more readily accept the outcome of a trial if they had a hand in selecting the jury. However, in Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court prohibited litigants from striking jurors b