Can online jurors be just as focused and fair as those deliberating in a courtroom? As courts rely more heavily on virtual proceedings, new research from the American Psychological Association (APA) suggests that justice doesn't necessarily suffer when jurors deliberate online, an APA news release stated. A study published in Law and Human Behavior found that mock juries convened virtually were just as attentive, engaged and thoughtful as juries that met in person. Researchers compared 54 mock juries — 24 that deliberated face to face and 30 that met online — using identical civil trial materials. On nearly every measure, the outcomes were strikingly similar. “Despite concerns that virtual formats might undermine juror attention or fundamentally alter deliberations, participants in online juries carefully evaluated the evidence and reported putting in comparable effort,” said lead author Krystia Reed, Ph.D., of the University of Texas at El Paso. The study involved 317 adults from upstate New York, who viewed a videotaped mock civil trial involving a fictional motor vehicle accident. Jurors, seated in groups of five or six, were asked to reach a unanimous verdict and determine damages for two plaintiffs suing a trucking company for negligence. Researchers analyzed recordings of every jury deliberation, examining jurors’ attention, engagement, interaction patterns and diversity of perspectives. They 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.
A 2026 study studied this question.