Addressing widespread skepticism from legal professionals regarding remote courtroom proceedings, Virtually the Same? (Krista Reed et al.) offers a reassuring and rigorous analysis demonstrating that virtual juries maintain the same high levels of attention, engagement, and deliberation quality as their in-person counterparts. The article investigates the increasingly relevant use of virtual jury trials, a practice that gained significant traction during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers aimed to test whether virtual mock juries differ fundamentally from traditional in-person juries across three major domains: juror attention and engagement, the nature of deliberation, and jury diversity.
The study utilized a natural-experimental design involving 317 community members assigned to 54 mock juries (24 in-person and 30 virtual). All participants watched the same hour-long videotaped trial regarding a civil automobile accident and were subsequently tasked with deliberating to reach a unanimous decision on liability and damage awards.
In this limited research, they found that in-person and virtual juries are substantially similar, with few major differences:
- Attention and Engagement: Contrary to concerns that virtual jurors might be easily distracted, both groups showed high and nearly identical levels of case knowledge, emotional response, and motivation. The only significant difference was that virtual jurors reported expending greater cognitive effort than in-person jurors.
- Deliberation Dynamics: Both modalities produced deliberations of similar length and word counts. However, in-person jurors interrupted each other significantly more often (nearly four times as much) and discussed a wider variety of topics, including their own personal experiences, the judge, and the severely injured plaintiff. Conversely, virtual juries spent more time discussing the concept of fairness.
- Jury Diversity: While the virtual and in-person samples did not differ in terms of race or gender, virtual jurors tended to be younger, wealthier, more educated, and more likely to be employed full-time. Despite concerns about a "digital divide," the study found no evidence that demographic factors like income or education negatively impacted how much a juror actually spoke and participated during virtual deliberations.
This aligns with First Court’s observations in mock trials that Zoom mock jury deliberations are similar to in-person mock jury deliberations. Similarly, we had a project where we did three in-person panels and one online panel. First Court was able to stream the in-person presentations to the virtual jurors and then have them deliberate with an off-site moderator on Zoom. The results of all four deliberations were fairly similar, with the virtual group falling in the middle when it came to awarding damages. We have found that online trials allow moderators to step in more quickly to keep jurors on track and to limit off-topic discussions. In-person deliberations tend to be more organic, and we allow them to discuss with more limited intervention to portray the feeling of a real jury and step in when they need clarification or end up completely off topic.
So should all mocks be conducted virtually, then? While virtual juries are a viable option, in-person panels allow jurors to focus on the discussion more and relay their thoughts and opinions more efficiently. Virtual juries have a lot more factors to consider, like a person's technical abilities. Additionally, when people are in a true discussion, it is only natural that individuals with strong opinions on the subject matter might interrupt to get their point across. Virtual juries are more limited in that ability because it is much harder to hear more than one person at a time on Zoom than it is when in person. Both are feasible options with pros and cons.
“Some of the most telling moments don’t happen during deliberations at all,” notes trial consultant Kristi Harrington. “They happen at lunch, during breaks, and in those unscripted interactions where you see who naturally leads, who persuades, and how influence actually forms within the group.” In-person settings make those observations possible, revealing leadership and influence dynamics that virtual environments, by design, tend to miss.
It is also important to note that all attorney presentations in the study were conducted virtually. That distinction matters. Attorneys do not present the same way on Zoom as they do in a live courtroom. Presence, pacing, and connection with the jury can change meaningfully depending on the format. So while the findings on juror behavior are compelling, they do not fully account for how in-person advocacy might shape juror perception and decision-making. “Attorneys do not show up the same way on Zoom as they do in a courtroom. The energy, the pacing, and the ability to connect with jurors all shift, and that can have a real impact on how the case is received,” explains trial consultant Amanda Panagakis, Ph.D.
Reed’s article concludes by noting that despite widespread reservations from legal professionals regarding virtual formats, virtual juries thoroughly process evidence and do not fundamentally alter the core aspects of jury deliberation. Ultimately, the study suggests that virtual juries are a viable, effective alternative to traditional in-person trials, offering a practical solution as courts continue to face case backlogs.
The real advantage is not the format. It is the perspective. Whether virtual or in-person, mock trials do not speak for themselves. They require experienced judgment to design the exercise, read between the lines of juror feedback, and translate those reactions into actionable strategy. That is where veteran trial consultants make the difference. Because in the end, it is not just about what jurors say. It is about understanding what they mean and knowing what to do with it.
Recent Articles by Our First Court Team:
Comments