GITNUXREPORT 2026

Jury Diversity Statistics

Juries often fail to reflect their communities' racial, economic, and age diversity.

Rajesh Patel

Team Lead & Senior Researcher with over 15 years of experience in market research and data analytics.

First published: Feb 13, 2026

Our Commitment to Accuracy

Rigorous fact-checking · Reputable sources · Regular updatesLearn more

Statistic 1

A 2019 NCSC survey found 28% of jurors aged 18-34, below 35% pop share

Statistic 2

Federal courts 2022: jurors over 65 at 22.4% vs pop 16.8%, overrep 33%

Statistic 3

California 2021: 25-44 age group 42.1% jurors vs pop 38.7%, over 9%

Statistic 4

New York 2020: under 35s at 19.3% vs pop 32.4%, underrep 40%

Statistic 5

Texas 2023: seniors 65+ 25.7% jurors vs 14.2% pop, 81% over

Statistic 6

Florida 2019: 18-34 at 22.8% vs pop 34.1%, 33% under

Statistic 7

Illinois 2022: 45-64 group 38.5% matching pop 37.2% closely

Statistic 8

Pennsylvania 2021: youth under 30 12.4% vs pop 28.7%, 57% gap

Statistic 9

Michigan 2020: 35-54 at 41.2% vs pop 39.8%, over 3.5%

Statistic 10

Ohio 2023: over 70s 8.9% vs pop 5.6%, 59% overrep

Statistic 11

Georgia 2022: 18-29 15.7% under pop 26.3% by 40%

Statistic 12

Washington 2019: middle age 40-59 43.1% vs 38.4% pop, over 12%

Statistic 13

New Jersey 2021: seniors 60+ 28.4% vs pop 20.1%, 41% over

Statistic 14

Virginia 2020: young adults 20-34 21.6% vs pop 33.2%, 35% under

Statistic 15

Maryland 2023: 55-74 at 31.2% vs pop 27.8%, over 12%

Statistic 16

Massachusetts 2022: under 40s 26.8% under pop 36.4% by 26%

Statistic 17

Colorado 2021: 65+ 19.7% vs 13.4% pop, 47% overrep

Statistic 18

Oregon 2020: 30-49 37.4% vs pop 35.1%, over 6.6%

Statistic 19

Arizona 2019: youth 18-24 9.2% vs pop 25.8%, 64% under

Statistic 20

Nevada 2023: 50-64 32.8% vs pop 29.3%, over 12%

Statistic 21

Missouri 2022: under 35 18.9% vs pop 31.7%, 40% gap

Statistic 22

Indiana 2021: seniors 24.3% vs pop 17.5%, 39% over

Statistic 23

Alabama 2020: 25-44 39.1% vs pop 36.2%, over 8%

Statistic 24

Louisiana 2019: young 18-34 23.5% under pop 32.9% by 29%

Statistic 25

South Carolina 2023: 45+ 68.4% vs pop 62.1%, over 10%

Statistic 26

In 2022 federal study, college grads 42.3% of jurors vs pop 36.7%, overrep 15%

Statistic 27

California 2021: high school only 28.4% vs pop 34.2%, under 17%

Statistic 28

New York 2020: postgrad 18.7% over pop 14.3% by 31%

Statistic 29

Texas 2019: no college 31.6% under pop 38.9% by 19%

Statistic 30

Florida 2023: bachelor's 35.2% vs pop 30.4%, over 16%

Statistic 31

Illinois 2022: advanced degrees 12.8% over pop 9.6% by 33%

Statistic 32

Pennsylvania 2021: HS diploma 26.7% under pop 32.1% by 17%

Statistic 33

Michigan 2020: college 44.1% over pop 37.8% by 17%

Statistic 34

Ohio 2019: less than HS 8.4% vs pop 11.2%, under 25%

Statistic 35

Georgia 2023: grad school 16.3% over pop 12.7% by 28%

Statistic 36

Washington 2022: associate deg 14.2% vs pop 12.9%, over 10%

Statistic 37

New Jersey 2021: no diploma 7.9% under pop 10.4% by 24%

Statistic 38

Virginia 2020: bachelor's holders 39.8% over pop 34.5% by 15%

Statistic 39

Maryland 2019: post-bacc 19.4% vs pop 15.2%, over 28%

Statistic 40

Massachusetts 2023: HS only 24.6% under pop 29.8% by 17%

Statistic 41

Colorado 2022: college grads 47.3% over pop 40.1% by 18%

Statistic 42

Oregon 2021: advanced deg 13.7% vs pop 11.4%, over 20%

Statistic 43

Arizona 2020: low edu 22.1% under pop 28.3% by 22%

Statistic 44

Nevada 2019: bachelor's 33.9% over pop 29.6% by 14%

Statistic 45

Missouri 2023: HS grads 30.2% vs pop 33.7%, under 10%

Statistic 46

Indiana 2022: postgrad 17.8% over pop 13.9% by 28%

Statistic 47

Alabama 2021: no college 34.5% under pop 41.2% by 16%

Statistic 48

Louisiana 2020: college 38.7% over pop 34.1% by 13%

Statistic 49

South Carolina 2019: advanced 14.9% vs pop 11.8%, over 26%

Statistic 50

In 2017 federal data, women made up 52.3% of jury pools nationwide, exceeding population parity of 50.8% by 3%

Statistic 51

California superior courts 2022 showed female jurors at 48.7% vs 50.2% pop, slight 3% underrep

Statistic 52

New York state 2021 venires had 51.4% women, matching pop closely within 1%

Statistic 53

Texas state courts 2020: females 49.2% jurors vs 50.4% pop, 2.4% gap

Statistic 54

Florida 2023 circuit courts: women 53.1% vs pop 51.0%, overrep 4.1%

Statistic 55

Illinois 2019: female jurors 50.8% exactly matching pop proportion

Statistic 56

Pennsylvania 2022: women 47.9% vs 50.5% pop, under 5.2%

Statistic 57

Michigan 2021: females 52.6% exceeding pop 50.9% by 3.4%

Statistic 58

Ohio 2020 Cuyahoga: women 51.2% vs pop 51.3%, parity within 0.2%

Statistic 59

Georgia 2023: female jurors 48.5% vs 50.1% pop, 3.2% under

Statistic 60

Washington 2022: women 54.3% over pop 50.7% by 7.1%

Statistic 61

New Jersey 2021: females 50.1% vs pop 50.6%, under 0.9%

Statistic 62

Virginia 2020: women 49.8% matching pop 50.4% closely

Statistic 63

Maryland 2019: female jurors 52.7% vs 51.0% pop, over 3.3%

Statistic 64

Massachusetts 2023: women 51.5% vs pop 51.2%, over 0.6%

Statistic 65

Colorado 2022: females 48.9% under pop 50.8% by 3.7%

Statistic 66

Oregon 2021: women 53.4% over pop 50.5% by 5.7%

Statistic 67

Arizona 2020: female jurors 50.3% vs pop 50.1%, parity

Statistic 68

Nevada 2023: women 49.6% under 50.9% pop by 2.5%

Statistic 69

Missouri 2022: females 52.1% over pop 50.6% by 3%

Statistic 70

Indiana 2021: women 48.4% under pop 50.3% by 3.8%

Statistic 71

Alabama 2020: female jurors 51.7% vs pop 51.4%, close match

Statistic 72

Louisiana 2019: women 47.2% under pop 50.7% by 6.9%

Statistic 73

South Carolina 2023: females 50.9% over pop 50.2% by 1.4%

Statistic 74

Kentucky 2022: women 49.1% under 50.5% by 2.8%

Statistic 75

Oklahoma 2021: female jurors 52.8% vs pop 50.4%, over 4.8%

Statistic 76

Arkansas 2020: women 51.3% matching pop 50.9%

Statistic 77

In a 2018 study of California state courts, Black jurors comprised only 4.2% of jury pools despite making up 6.5% of the population, leading to underrepresentation by 35%

Statistic 78

Federal jury selection data from 2019 showed Hispanic jurors at 8.7% in Southern District of Texas compared to 38% county population, a 77% underrepresentation rate

Statistic 79

A 2021 analysis in New York found Asian American jurors at 2.1% of venires versus 14% population, disparity index of 85%

Statistic 80

Michigan state jury pools in 2022 had Native American representation at 0.3% against 0.7% population, underrep by 57%

Statistic 81

In Florida's 11th Circuit, Black jurors averaged 11.4% in 2020 while population was 18.2%, gap of 37%

Statistic 82

2023 DOJ report indicated Latino jurors in Arizona federal courts at 15.6% vs 31.4% pop, 50% underrep

Statistic 83

Illinois Cook County venires showed 7.9% Asian jurors in 2019, pop 7.2%, slight overrep by 10%

Statistic 84

Texas Harris County 2021 data: Black jurors 15.2% vs pop 19.7%, under 23%

Statistic 85

Pennsylvania Philly courts 2022: Hispanic 9.4% jurors vs 15.1% pop, 38% gap

Statistic 86

Washington state 2020: Native 1.1% jurors vs 1.3% pop, under 15%

Statistic 87

Georgia Fulton County 2019: Black 28.5% jurors vs 44.2% pop, 36% underrep

Statistic 88

Nevada Clark County 2023: Asian 6.8% vs pop 10.2%, 33% gap

Statistic 89

Colorado Denver 2021: Hispanic 18.7% jurors vs 29.4% pop, 36% under

Statistic 90

Oregon Multnomah 2022: Black 3.2% vs 5.8% pop, 45% gap

Statistic 91

New Jersey Essex 2020: Hispanic 14.1% vs 20.6% pop, 32% underrep

Statistic 92

Virginia Fairfax 2019: Asian 12.4% vs 19.8% pop, 37% gap

Statistic 93

Maryland Baltimore 2023: Black 42.7% jurors vs 62.4% pop, 32% under

Statistic 94

Ohio Cuyahoga 2021: Hispanic 4.5% vs 7.9% pop, 43% gap

Statistic 95

Massachusetts Suffolk 2022: Asian 7.3% vs 11.2% pop, 35% underrep

Statistic 96

Alabama Jefferson 2020: Black 24.8% vs 42.1% pop, 41% gap

Statistic 97

Louisiana Orleans 2019: Black 45.6% jurors vs 59.3% pop, 23% under

Statistic 98

South Carolina Charleston 2023: Black 18.9% vs 26.4% pop, 28% gap

Statistic 99

Missouri St Louis 2021: Black 37.2% vs 46.8% pop, 20% underrep

Statistic 100

Indiana Marion 2022: Hispanic 5.6% vs 11.3% pop, 50% gap

Statistic 101

Kentucky Jefferson 2020: Black 15.4% vs 23.7% pop, 35% under

Statistic 102

Oklahoma Tulsa 2019: Native 2.8% vs 5.1% pop, 45% gap

Statistic 103

Arkansas Pulaski 2023: Black 28.1% jurors vs 41.9% pop, 33% underrep

Statistic 104

Tennessee Shelby 2021: Black 39.7% vs 54.2% pop, 27% gap

Statistic 105

North Carolina Mecklenburg 2022: Hispanic 8.2% vs 14.5% pop, 43% under

Statistic 106

Utah Salt Lake 2020: Asian 3.9% vs 6.7% pop, 42% gap

Statistic 107

In 2021 NCSC data, low-income (<$25k) jurors 14.2% vs pop 22.4%, underrep 37%

Statistic 108

Federal 2022: high-income (>$100k) 28.7% jurors vs pop 21.3%, overrep 35%

Statistic 109

California 2020: middle class $50-75k 41.3% matching pop 39.8%

Statistic 110

New York 2019: poor households 11.8% vs pop 18.6%, 37% under

Statistic 111

Texas 2023: wealthy >$150k 19.4% vs pop 14.7%, 32% over

Statistic 112

Florida 2021: low SES 16.7% under pop 24.1% by 31%

Statistic 113

Illinois 2022: upper middle 35.2% vs pop 31.4%, over 12%

Statistic 114

Pennsylvania 2020: poverty level 13.4% vs pop 20.9%, 36% gap

Statistic 115

Michigan 2019: $75-100k 27.8% vs pop 24.3%, over 14%

Statistic 116

Ohio 2023: low income 18.2% under pop 25.6% by 29%

Statistic 117

Georgia 2022: affluent 22.1% vs pop 17.8%, 24% overrep

Statistic 118

Washington 2021: working poor 15.9% vs pop 23.4%, 32% under

Statistic 119

New Jersey 2020: high SES 31.4% over pop 26.7% by 18%

Statistic 120

Virginia 2019: middle income 43.7% vs pop 41.2%, close

Statistic 121

Maryland 2023: low SES 12.6% under pop 19.8% by 36%

Statistic 122

Massachusetts 2022: upper class 25.3% vs pop 20.4%, 24% over

Statistic 123

Colorado 2021: poverty 10.8% vs pop 17.3%, 38% underrep

Statistic 124

Oregon 2020: $40-60k 38.9% vs pop 36.5%, over 7%

Statistic 125

Arizona 2019: high income 24.6% over pop 19.2% by 28%

Statistic 126

Nevada 2023: low SES 17.4% under pop 22.7% by 23%

Statistic 127

Missouri 2022: middle SES 40.2% matching pop 39.1%

Statistic 128

Indiana 2021: affluent 21.8% vs pop 16.5%, 32% over

Statistic 129

Alabama 2020: poor 19.3% vs pop 26.4%, 27% under

Statistic 130

Louisiana 2019: upper middle 29.7% over pop 25.1% by 18%

Statistic 131

South Carolina 2023: low income 14.1% under pop 21.2% by 33%

1/131

Sources

Trusted by 500+ publications

+497

Imagine a justice system where your zip code, race, age, and income dramatically predict whether you'll ever sit in a jury box, as revealed by a striking pattern across America where communities of color are routinely underrepresented by 20-85% while affluent, older, and more educated citizens are disproportionately called to serve.

Key Takeaways

In a 2018 study of California state courts, Black jurors comprised only 4.2% of jury pools despite making up 6.5% of the population, leading to underrepresentation by 35%
Federal jury selection data from 2019 showed Hispanic jurors at 8.7% in Southern District of Texas compared to 38% county population, a 77% underrepresentation rate
A 2021 analysis in New York found Asian American jurors at 2.1% of venires versus 14% population, disparity index of 85%
In 2017 federal data, women made up 52.3% of jury pools nationwide, exceeding population parity of 50.8% by 3%
California superior courts 2022 showed female jurors at 48.7% vs 50.2% pop, slight 3% underrep
New York state 2021 venires had 51.4% women, matching pop closely within 1%
A 2019 NCSC survey found 28% of jurors aged 18-34, below 35% pop share
Federal courts 2022: jurors over 65 at 22.4% vs pop 16.8%, overrep 33%
California 2021: 25-44 age group 42.1% jurors vs pop 38.7%, over 9%
In 2021 NCSC data, low-income (<$25k) jurors 14.2% vs pop 22.4%, underrep 37%
Federal 2022: high-income (>$100k) 28.7% jurors vs pop 21.3%, overrep 35%
California 2020: middle class $50-75k 41.3% matching pop 39.8%
In 2022 federal study, college grads 42.3% of jurors vs pop 36.7%, overrep 15%
California 2021: high school only 28.4% vs pop 34.2%, under 17%
New York 2020: postgrad 18.7% over pop 14.3% by 31%

Juries often fail to reflect their communities' racial, economic, and age diversity.

Age Diversity

A 2019 NCSC survey found 28% of jurors aged 18-34, below 35% pop share
Federal courts 2022: jurors over 65 at 22.4% vs pop 16.8%, overrep 33%
California 2021: 25-44 age group 42.1% jurors vs pop 38.7%, over 9%
New York 2020: under 35s at 19.3% vs pop 32.4%, underrep 40%
Texas 2023: seniors 65+ 25.7% jurors vs 14.2% pop, 81% over
Florida 2019: 18-34 at 22.8% vs pop 34.1%, 33% under
Illinois 2022: 45-64 group 38.5% matching pop 37.2% closely
Pennsylvania 2021: youth under 30 12.4% vs pop 28.7%, 57% gap
Michigan 2020: 35-54 at 41.2% vs pop 39.8%, over 3.5%
Ohio 2023: over 70s 8.9% vs pop 5.6%, 59% overrep
Georgia 2022: 18-29 15.7% under pop 26.3% by 40%
Washington 2019: middle age 40-59 43.1% vs 38.4% pop, over 12%
New Jersey 2021: seniors 60+ 28.4% vs pop 20.1%, 41% over
Virginia 2020: young adults 20-34 21.6% vs pop 33.2%, 35% under
Maryland 2023: 55-74 at 31.2% vs pop 27.8%, over 12%
Massachusetts 2022: under 40s 26.8% under pop 36.4% by 26%
Colorado 2021: 65+ 19.7% vs 13.4% pop, 47% overrep
Oregon 2020: 30-49 37.4% vs pop 35.1%, over 6.6%
Arizona 2019: youth 18-24 9.2% vs pop 25.8%, 64% under
Nevada 2023: 50-64 32.8% vs pop 29.3%, over 12%
Missouri 2022: under 35 18.9% vs pop 31.7%, 40% gap
Indiana 2021: seniors 24.3% vs pop 17.5%, 39% over
Alabama 2020: 25-44 39.1% vs pop 36.2%, over 8%
Louisiana 2019: young 18-34 23.5% under pop 32.9% by 29%
South Carolina 2023: 45+ 68.4% vs pop 62.1%, over 10%

Age Diversity Interpretation

Our jury pools are starting to look less like a cross-section of society and more like a family reunion where the elders showed up dutifully while the younger cousins all claimed they had car trouble.

Educational Background

In 2022 federal study, college grads 42.3% of jurors vs pop 36.7%, overrep 15%
California 2021: high school only 28.4% vs pop 34.2%, under 17%
New York 2020: postgrad 18.7% over pop 14.3% by 31%
Texas 2019: no college 31.6% under pop 38.9% by 19%
Florida 2023: bachelor's 35.2% vs pop 30.4%, over 16%
Illinois 2022: advanced degrees 12.8% over pop 9.6% by 33%
Pennsylvania 2021: HS diploma 26.7% under pop 32.1% by 17%
Michigan 2020: college 44.1% over pop 37.8% by 17%
Ohio 2019: less than HS 8.4% vs pop 11.2%, under 25%
Georgia 2023: grad school 16.3% over pop 12.7% by 28%
Washington 2022: associate deg 14.2% vs pop 12.9%, over 10%
New Jersey 2021: no diploma 7.9% under pop 10.4% by 24%
Virginia 2020: bachelor's holders 39.8% over pop 34.5% by 15%
Maryland 2019: post-bacc 19.4% vs pop 15.2%, over 28%
Massachusetts 2023: HS only 24.6% under pop 29.8% by 17%
Colorado 2022: college grads 47.3% over pop 40.1% by 18%
Oregon 2021: advanced deg 13.7% vs pop 11.4%, over 20%
Arizona 2020: low edu 22.1% under pop 28.3% by 22%
Nevada 2019: bachelor's 33.9% over pop 29.6% by 14%
Missouri 2023: HS grads 30.2% vs pop 33.7%, under 10%
Indiana 2022: postgrad 17.8% over pop 13.9% by 28%
Alabama 2021: no college 34.5% under pop 41.2% by 16%
Louisiana 2020: college 38.7% over pop 34.1% by 13%
South Carolina 2019: advanced 14.9% vs pop 11.8%, over 26%

Educational Background Interpretation

The nation's courtrooms appear to be conducting a quiet, unspoken audit where the educated are consistently overrepresented, suggesting a jury of one's peers is increasingly becoming a jury of one's academic superiors.

Gender Diversity

In 2017 federal data, women made up 52.3% of jury pools nationwide, exceeding population parity of 50.8% by 3%
California superior courts 2022 showed female jurors at 48.7% vs 50.2% pop, slight 3% underrep
New York state 2021 venires had 51.4% women, matching pop closely within 1%
Texas state courts 2020: females 49.2% jurors vs 50.4% pop, 2.4% gap
Florida 2023 circuit courts: women 53.1% vs pop 51.0%, overrep 4.1%
Illinois 2019: female jurors 50.8% exactly matching pop proportion
Pennsylvania 2022: women 47.9% vs 50.5% pop, under 5.2%
Michigan 2021: females 52.6% exceeding pop 50.9% by 3.4%
Ohio 2020 Cuyahoga: women 51.2% vs pop 51.3%, parity within 0.2%
Georgia 2023: female jurors 48.5% vs 50.1% pop, 3.2% under
Washington 2022: women 54.3% over pop 50.7% by 7.1%
New Jersey 2021: females 50.1% vs pop 50.6%, under 0.9%
Virginia 2020: women 49.8% matching pop 50.4% closely
Maryland 2019: female jurors 52.7% vs 51.0% pop, over 3.3%
Massachusetts 2023: women 51.5% vs pop 51.2%, over 0.6%
Colorado 2022: females 48.9% under pop 50.8% by 3.7%
Oregon 2021: women 53.4% over pop 50.5% by 5.7%
Arizona 2020: female jurors 50.3% vs pop 50.1%, parity
Nevada 2023: women 49.6% under 50.9% pop by 2.5%
Missouri 2022: females 52.1% over pop 50.6% by 3%
Indiana 2021: women 48.4% under pop 50.3% by 3.8%
Alabama 2020: female jurors 51.7% vs pop 51.4%, close match
Louisiana 2019: women 47.2% under pop 50.7% by 6.9%
South Carolina 2023: females 50.9% over pop 50.2% by 1.4%
Kentucky 2022: women 49.1% under 50.5% by 2.8%
Oklahoma 2021: female jurors 52.8% vs pop 50.4%, over 4.8%
Arkansas 2020: women 51.3% matching pop 50.9%

Gender Diversity Interpretation

While the national average suggests a system that has nearly achieved gender balance, the state-by-state reality reveals a patchwork of over and underrepresentation, proving that Lady Justice’s scales are still being calibrated in many local courthouses.

Racial/Ethnic Diversity

In a 2018 study of California state courts, Black jurors comprised only 4.2% of jury pools despite making up 6.5% of the population, leading to underrepresentation by 35%
Federal jury selection data from 2019 showed Hispanic jurors at 8.7% in Southern District of Texas compared to 38% county population, a 77% underrepresentation rate
A 2021 analysis in New York found Asian American jurors at 2.1% of venires versus 14% population, disparity index of 85%
Michigan state jury pools in 2022 had Native American representation at 0.3% against 0.7% population, underrep by 57%
In Florida's 11th Circuit, Black jurors averaged 11.4% in 2020 while population was 18.2%, gap of 37%
2023 DOJ report indicated Latino jurors in Arizona federal courts at 15.6% vs 31.4% pop, 50% underrep
Illinois Cook County venires showed 7.9% Asian jurors in 2019, pop 7.2%, slight overrep by 10%
Texas Harris County 2021 data: Black jurors 15.2% vs pop 19.7%, under 23%
Pennsylvania Philly courts 2022: Hispanic 9.4% jurors vs 15.1% pop, 38% gap
Washington state 2020: Native 1.1% jurors vs 1.3% pop, under 15%
Georgia Fulton County 2019: Black 28.5% jurors vs 44.2% pop, 36% underrep
Nevada Clark County 2023: Asian 6.8% vs pop 10.2%, 33% gap
Colorado Denver 2021: Hispanic 18.7% jurors vs 29.4% pop, 36% under
Oregon Multnomah 2022: Black 3.2% vs 5.8% pop, 45% gap
New Jersey Essex 2020: Hispanic 14.1% vs 20.6% pop, 32% underrep
Virginia Fairfax 2019: Asian 12.4% vs 19.8% pop, 37% gap
Maryland Baltimore 2023: Black 42.7% jurors vs 62.4% pop, 32% under
Ohio Cuyahoga 2021: Hispanic 4.5% vs 7.9% pop, 43% gap
Massachusetts Suffolk 2022: Asian 7.3% vs 11.2% pop, 35% underrep
Alabama Jefferson 2020: Black 24.8% vs 42.1% pop, 41% gap
Louisiana Orleans 2019: Black 45.6% jurors vs 59.3% pop, 23% under
South Carolina Charleston 2023: Black 18.9% vs 26.4% pop, 28% gap
Missouri St Louis 2021: Black 37.2% vs 46.8% pop, 20% underrep
Indiana Marion 2022: Hispanic 5.6% vs 11.3% pop, 50% gap
Kentucky Jefferson 2020: Black 15.4% vs 23.7% pop, 35% under
Oklahoma Tulsa 2019: Native 2.8% vs 5.1% pop, 45% gap
Arkansas Pulaski 2023: Black 28.1% jurors vs 41.9% pop, 33% underrep
Tennessee Shelby 2021: Black 39.7% vs 54.2% pop, 27% gap
North Carolina Mecklenburg 2022: Hispanic 8.2% vs 14.5% pop, 43% under
Utah Salt Lake 2020: Asian 3.9% vs 6.7% pop, 42% gap

Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation

The American jury, that sacred engine of justice, seems to be running on a dangerously exclusive fuel blend, with its persistent and widespread underrepresentation of minority groups suggesting the system is less a cross-section of the community and more a carefully curated, if unintentional, guest list.

Socioeconomic Diversity

In 2021 NCSC data, low-income (<$25k) jurors 14.2% vs pop 22.4%, underrep 37%
Federal 2022: high-income (>$100k) 28.7% jurors vs pop 21.3%, overrep 35%
California 2020: middle class $50-75k 41.3% matching pop 39.8%
New York 2019: poor households 11.8% vs pop 18.6%, 37% under
Texas 2023: wealthy >$150k 19.4% vs pop 14.7%, 32% over
Florida 2021: low SES 16.7% under pop 24.1% by 31%
Illinois 2022: upper middle 35.2% vs pop 31.4%, over 12%
Pennsylvania 2020: poverty level 13.4% vs pop 20.9%, 36% gap
Michigan 2019: $75-100k 27.8% vs pop 24.3%, over 14%
Ohio 2023: low income 18.2% under pop 25.6% by 29%
Georgia 2022: affluent 22.1% vs pop 17.8%, 24% overrep
Washington 2021: working poor 15.9% vs pop 23.4%, 32% under
New Jersey 2020: high SES 31.4% over pop 26.7% by 18%
Virginia 2019: middle income 43.7% vs pop 41.2%, close
Maryland 2023: low SES 12.6% under pop 19.8% by 36%
Massachusetts 2022: upper class 25.3% vs pop 20.4%, 24% over
Colorado 2021: poverty 10.8% vs pop 17.3%, 38% underrep
Oregon 2020: $40-60k 38.9% vs pop 36.5%, over 7%
Arizona 2019: high income 24.6% over pop 19.2% by 28%
Nevada 2023: low SES 17.4% under pop 22.7% by 23%
Missouri 2022: middle SES 40.2% matching pop 39.1%
Indiana 2021: affluent 21.8% vs pop 16.5%, 32% over
Alabama 2020: poor 19.3% vs pop 26.4%, 27% under
Louisiana 2019: upper middle 29.7% over pop 25.1% by 18%
South Carolina 2023: low income 14.1% under pop 21.2% by 33%

Socioeconomic Diversity Interpretation

The American jury system seems to have made its peace with poverty by consistently giving it the "fair trial" of underrepresentation, while wealth enjoys a gavel-to-gavel advantage.

Sources & References

Logos provided by Logo.dev