The South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions has reignited questions about juror impartiality, outside influence, and the safeguards courts use to ensure a fair trial. While the ruling stems from extraordinary allegations involving a court clerk’s interactions with jurors, it also highlights broader concerns that arise in high-profile cases where media attention, public opinion, and social media can shape the trial environment. Chad Lackey, Ph.D., a seasoned jury consultant and Director at DOAR, explains what the reversal means for attorneys, how juror bias is identified and addressed, and why a multi-faceted approach to jury selection remains critical in today’s highly connected world.
Q: The Murdaugh reversal is being called unprecedented due to the behavior of the court clerk. Does this decision set a new, stricter standard for what constitutes an ‘impartial jury,’ or is it just a unique response to an extraordinarily egregious situation?
Dr. Lackey: The Court acted responsibly given the extraordinary circumstances. While the court clerk was not charged with jury tampering, in part because most jurors stated she did nothing wrong, several jurors indicated she acted inappropriately. For example, some evidence suggests she made inappropriate comments to the jurors, such as telling them not to be fooled by the defense attorneys. She may have even orchestrated the removal of a juror by lying about an alleged Facebook post. According to allegations, she believed the juror could hang the jury and fabricated the story about the post to get the juror removed. She did this, as the story goes, because she was publishing a book about the trial and believed a conviction would improve her book’s sales. We will certainly learn more from the civil case Murdaugh filed against her.
Q: Are high-profile cases uniquely vulnerable to challenges involving jury influence, or are the same dynamics present in ordinary civil and commercial cases?
Dr. Lackey: Jurors are much more susceptible to outside influence in high-profile cases. In these instances, public stories about the cases are abundant. Reporters are actively seeking to write more stories on the subject. And everyday people discuss the case with friends, with their family over dinner or around the water cooler in the office. While judges always instruct jurors not to conduct independent research or discuss the case with others, these instructions take on added significance in high-profile cases. Media stories about the case abound and can be easily accessed by anyone. Moreover, friends, family members, coworkers, and others may want to speak with jurors about the case and their experiences. Sometimes this risk becomes so great that judges can sequester jurors to isolate them from this instance, but this is rare.
Q: How much pressure do jurors face in nationally televised, highly emotional trials like the Murdaugh case?
Dr. Lackey: Interestingly, jurors in high-profile cases don’t usually experience pressure as we might expect. In most ‘regular’ cases, prospective jurors do their best to get out of serving on a jury. For most, serving, especially for a long trial, significantly disrupts their day-to-day life and interferes with caregiving and financial responsibilities—or so many argue. In high-profile cases, the opposite is true. People want to serve on high-profile cases. They find the prospect interesting and worth the sacrifice. They claim they do not have financial or caregiving hardship and can be fair and impartial. In the end, they often don’t feel pressure. They are fascinated by the prospect and participate eagerly.
Q: From a jury consulting perspective, how does a landmark ruling like this likely change how defense teams investigate and monitor jury dynamics moving forward?
Dr. Lackey: In short, it doesn’t. We always advise defense teams in high-profile criminal cases to do social media searches for jury selection, and to monitor seated jurors’ social media activity during trial. Conducting social media searches on prospective jurors is critical in high-profile cases, because you are much more likely to find posts or activity that reveal a potential bias that could shape their decision-making unfavorably. In extreme cases, you find that a prospective juror has formed unfavorable opinions about the defendant or the case. Once the jury is seated, defense teams should continue to monitor jurors’ social media activity. Posts from a sitting juror may reveal misconduct that results in the removal of a bad juror or a mistrial.
Q: The defense team has noted they plan to aggressively scour prospective jurors’ social media and digital footprints before jury selection. From your experience, how reliably do a person’s public online profiles reveal subconscious bias or a vulnerability to outside influence compared to traditional in-person questioning?
Dr. Lackey: Social media activity can definitely reveal bias, especially in high-profile cases. I’ve seen social media posts by prospective jurors expressing clear opinions about the case and negative opinions toward the defendants. However, the best strategy to identify biased jurors does not rely on social media searches alone. The best strategy involves the use of a thorough and targeted supplemental juror questionnaire along with social media searches. Prospective jurors are more likely to reveal a bias in a confidential questionnaire than they are in open court. Coupled with social media searches, defense teams can make significant headway in identifying biases among prospective jurors by taking such a multi-pronged approach. The more information, the better.
Q: What specific psychological screening techniques or questioning strategies should be used during voir dire to identify jurors who claim they can be impartial, but secretly harbor preconceived biases or resentment toward the defense?
Dr. Lackey: As mentioned, a multi-pronged approach coupling social media searching with a supplemental juror questionnaire is the most effective way to identify bias and prejudice. Ask people targeted questions, and most importantly, give them an opportunity to answer fully. Whether you draw out people in voir dire or give them ample room to fully explain on a questionnaire, the goal is to let the juror tell their story. Notably, the one thing you should never do is ask whether they can be fair. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, they will say they can, and any hopes for causing them to be off diminish. Instead, focus on any hesitations or concerns.
The situation becomes much more intense when it comes to stealth jurors, i.e., people who have an agenda and want to serve because they have prejudged the case. These jurors are more difficult to identify because they are actively trying to hide their true feelings. In these cases, social media searches are critical because you can identify opinions they might have voiced outside of the courtroom. SJQs (Supplemental Juror Questionnaires) can be critically important as well.
For example, if someone denies posting about the case in a questionnaire and you find such a post, you can confront them in court. Questioning prospective jurors during voir dire about negative opinions expressed in posts or questionnaires can also be informative. Some people will try too hard to make the case that they can be fair. Identifying stealth jurors is always difficult, and there is no one formula. Much of it comes down to the nature of the case, the amount of attention it has received, and popular opinions and press accounts of the case and defendant. It also comes down to preparation, wording questions carefully and listening intently to what prospective jurors say, and don’t say. In these cases, more information is not only better, but also essential.
