By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm:
America’s civil litigation system can sometimes look a little like class warfare. On one side — often, but not always the defense — there will be an organization and a group of individuals who enjoy substantially more wealth than those on the other side. So what do we think about the rich? The jurors who file into a courtroom to decide a dispute will naturally hail from the full spectrum of social classes. At the same time, their average level of socio-economic status will typically be substantially below at least some of the litigants and witnesses they’re being asked to evaluate. So what baked-in attitudes toward wealth and equality might jurors be bringing with them?
When it comes to views on wealth, it is safe to say that they’re mixed. On the one hand, we tend to admire both success and power, and the American narrative of the self-made individual still has strong roots in our national psyche. At the same time, the realities of generational wealth together with the increasing gap between the wealthy on one side and the poor and middle class on the other side has brought new levels of resentment and distrust. Add to that the increasing prominence of billionaires involving themselves in the affairs of state, and there is a new concern that wealth is moving beyond the traditional checks that apply to representative government. Some recent statistics (Urban Institute, 2024) add some context to this situation. In the year I was born, 1963, the wealthiest in America had 36 times the wealth of those in the middle class. Now, it is nearly double that span — 71 times. In that time, the top one percent saw their wealth increase by seven fold in constant dollars. Many of the traditional factors that have driven that gap, race for example, have increased rather than dissipated. But even in that context, based on research, people still appear to view the wealthy as being more trustworthy (Boon-Falleur, André, Baumard & Nettle, 2024), and even those in the middle class will tend to favor the rich over the middle class in a dispute between the two (Horwitz & Dovidio, 2017).
How these attitudes factor in the courtroom will depend on the venue, the day’s jury pool, and the case story. But in this post, I suggest a few ideas for starting a conversation about wealth in voir dire.
Example Voir Dire on Wealth:
There is a great deal of advice out there on the ways plaintiffs should approach money when they’re asking for it, and plaintiffs obviously need to take care in asking not just about wealth per se, but the idea of created wealth through damages. The specific questions you ask will depend naturally on the case story and the role of your party in that story. But, drawing from a recent defense involving a wealthy landowner and a smaller local business in a wealthier resort town, here are a few themes that can help in exploring the degree of bias that a juror might carry based on wealth. Broadly, the goal is to ask questions that yield open-ended opinions, soliciting some favorable views, while at the same time revealing unfavorable views that could be a basis for a cause challenge or a peremptory strike.
- We all know that we live in a diverse society and some people have more means than others. So I want to ask a few questions on your views on wealth, on money to be blunt. In general, when a person becomes rich in this country, do you think that is more likely to be a factor of hard-work, of luck, or of something else? Why?
- Also in general, do you think wealth plays a positive role or a negative role in the life of the nation?
- What about economic inequality in this country — you might call it the gap between the rich and the poor — is that a bad thing in and of itself, or a good thing, or neither? Do you think that this gap is inevitable, or do you think it happens for a reason? What reasons?
- There is a slogan that has become somewhat popular lately — “tax the rich.” Who agrees with that, in general?
- Who has had the experience of being treated differently based on your level of wealth? Can you tell me about that?
- Who has been in a situation where you have either trusted someone or not trusted someone based on wealth? Please tell me about that.
- Let me ask about a more local issue. As you know, [this city] includes a lot of economic diversity, in the sense that it attracts many people who are pretty well off, while also retaining a lot of folks who are in the middle or below. Who here has views, positive or negative, about the role of wealth in this location specifically? [On positive views] Who agrees with that? Why? [Follow up for favorable themes]. [On negative views] Tell me more about that? [Note as risk/pursue for cause].
- In a dispute between a wealthy landowner and a local business, would you tend to have a default leaning in favor of one or the other?
- Who believes that the wealth in this area has brought harm to this area? And who disagrees with that?
- Who believes that the wealthy in this area exploit other local residents? And who disagrees with that?
____________________
Other Posts on Biases:
- Manage ‘Underdog’ Perceptions
- Account for the Wealth Bias
- Stop Asking Potential Jurors About What They Can ‘Set Aside’
____________________
Boon-Falleur, M., André, J. B., Baumard, N., & Nettle, D. (2024). Household wealth is associated with perceived trustworthiness in a diverse set of countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 19485506241289461
Horwitz, S. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2017). The rich—love them or hate them? Divergent implicit and explicit attitudes toward the wealthy. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(1), 3-31.
Image credit: Shutterstock, used under license