Trust on Trial: Declining Institutional Trust and the Modern Jury

Jurors don't walk into a courtroom as blank slates. They bring their life experiences, opinions, frustrations, and beliefs with them. And increasingly, one belief seems to be shared by many Americans: institutions aren't as trustworthy as they once seemed. For attorneys, that shift matters.

The courtroom has traditionally been viewed as a place where facts, evidence, and the law guide decision-making. But when jurors already question the credibility of the government, corporations, the media, or even the justice system itself, those underlying attitudes can quietly influence how they interpret everything they hear during trial.

Declining institutional trust isn't just a political talking point anymore. It's becoming part of the psychology of today's jury pool.

The Numbers Tell Part of the Story

Institutional trust isn’t binary. Jurors may trust some institutions while remaining skeptical of others. Surveys from organizations such as Pew Research Center and Gallup have documented declining or historically low levels of confidence in several major U.S. institutions, although the extent of that decline varies considerably by institution and over time. According to Pew Research, confidence has declined across government, higher education, the news media, and even scientific institutions. Trust in the federal government remains near historic lows, and public confidence in the Supreme Court has also fallen significantly in recent years. While the reasons vary, the overall trend is difficult to ignore: skepticism has become increasingly common.

Gallup has found similar patterns. Confidence in the U.S. court system reached one of its lowest levels on record in 2024, reflecting a broader decline in faith across many public institutions. These statistics aren't just interesting social trends, but they are increasingly relevant to trial strategy.

What This Looks Like Inside the Jury Room

Orrick's recent jury research offers one of the clearest examples of how these societal shifts are showing up during litigation. Their research found growing distrust toward the justice system, increasing skepticism toward large corporations, and a noticeable rise in jurors who expressed a willingness to disregard a judge's instructions if they believed their own sense of fairness pointed elsewhere. That's a remarkable finding because it suggests some jurors may prioritize personal beliefs over legal instructions when reaching a verdict. When people lose confidence in institutions, they often place greater confidence in themselves.

Voir Dire Isn't Just About Bias Anymore

Traditionally, voir dire has focused on uncovering obvious biases or life experiences connected to the case. But in today’s modern society, that may not be enough. Understanding how prospective jurors view authority, accountability, corporations, government agencies, or the legal system itself can provide valuable context for how they'll process evidence throughout trial.

A juror who generally distrusts institutions may approach expert testimony differently. They may scrutinize corporate witnesses more aggressively. They may even interpret judicial instructions through a lens of skepticism rather than acceptance.

These attitudes often aren't loud or obvious, but are usually subtle. But subtle doesn't mean insignificant.

Jury Research Has Become Even More Valuable

This is one reason modern jury research has become increasingly important. Community attitude surveys, mock juries, and social media research don't simply identify political affiliation or demographic trends. They help uncover the broader mindset jurors bring into the courtroom.

Understanding whether the local community of where a trial is taking place leans toward institutional trust or institutional skepticism can shape everything from witness preparation to case themes and opening statements. It's about recognizing the environment and influencing factors in which they're making decisions.

The Human Factor Isn't Going Away

The legal system is built on the idea that jurors will fairly evaluate evidence presented before them. But jurors are still people first. They don't stop being members of society when they enter the courthouse. The same headlines, social debates, and declining confidence affecting everyday life inevitably follow them into court deliberations.

As institutional trust continues to evolve, successful trial strategy will likely depend less on assuming jurors begin from a position of neutrality and more on understanding the perspectives they already carry.

Because before a single witness is sworn in, every juror has already formed opinions about the institutions surrounding the case. Recognizing those perspectives may be one of the most important parts of effective jury research moving forward.