Can justice happen on a laptop? Study says yes

(Press-News.org) As courts increasingly turn to virtual proceedings, jurors who deliberate online may be just as attentive, engaged and fair-minded as those who meet face-to-face, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.  

The study, published in Law and Human Behavior, compared 54 mock juries. Twenty-four of them met in person and 30 deliberated virtually using the same civil trial materials. Across most measures, the two formats produced nearly identical results.

“Despite concerns that virtual formats substantially reduce jurors’ attention or change the nature of their deliberations, virtual jurors thoroughly processed relevant evidence and reportedly expended more effort in doing so,” said Krystia Reed, PhD, of The University of Texas at El Paso and the study’s lead researcher.

Researchers recruited 317 participants from upstate New York (61% women, 86% white, average age 48.7) who watched a videotaped mock civil trial based on a fictional motor vehicle accident.

Jurors participated in juries of five or six individuals and deliberated either in person or virtually. Each of the mock juries was tasked with reaching a unanimous verdict and determining damages for two plaintiffs suing a trucking company for negligence. Researchers recorded and analyzed every deliberation, comparing the groups’ attention, engagement, interaction patterns and diversity.

Because participants were recruited at different times before and during the COVID-19 shutdowns rather than randomly assigned to a format, some demographic differences between the in-person and virtual groups emerged.

“For the most part, the in person and virtual juries were pretty similar. The main differences were that virtual jurors were generally younger, had more college degrees and were more likely to work full time,” said Reed.

Ultimately, the findings revealed few significant differences between formats. Virtual jurors reported putting forth greater cognitive effort than in-person jurors but scored similarly on measures of case knowledge, motivation and emotional engagement. In-person juries interrupted one another more often and discussed a slightly wider range of topics, but the overall length and quality of deliberations were nearly the same.

“This study provides little evidence that virtual jury participation fundamentally alters core aspects of jury deliberation and makes us very hopeful for the jury system, even as it begins to incorporate more technology,” Reed concluded. 

Researchers said the results suggest that virtual jury trials could be a viable option when in-person proceedings are not feasible, potentially helping courts reduce backlogs and improve accessibility without compromising fairness.

“This study should calm some of the concerns about virtual juries, though there’s still more to learn about where differences might come into play,” said Reed.

Article: “Virtually the Same? A Comparison between In-Person and Virtual Mock-Jury Deliberations,” by Krystia Reed, PhD, University of Texas at El Paso; Valerie P. Hans, PhD, Cornell University Cornell Law School; Vivian Rotenstein, PhD, Cornell University; Peter McKendall, MRP, Cornell University; Addison Rodriguez, BA , Cornell University; Rebecca K. Helm, PhD, University of Exeter; Valerie F. Reyna, PhD, Cornell University. Law and Human Behavior, published online Jan. 29, 2026.

Contact: Krystia Reed, PhD, can be reached at kmreed2@utep.edu.

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA’s membership includes  190,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve lives.

 

END