Recent federal data shows jurors over 65 are overrepresented by 33 percent. In Texas state courts, seniors are overrepresented by 81 percent, while young adults are underrepresented by up to 57 percent in Pennsylvania. These statistics reveal consistent demographic imbalances in jury composition across the United States.
Key Takeaways
- A 2019 NCSC survey found 28% of jurors aged 18-34, below 35% pop share
- In 2022 federal study, college grads 42.3% of jurors vs pop 36.7%, overrep 15%
- In 2017 federal data, women made up 52.3% of jury pools nationwide, exceeding population parity of 50.8% by 3%
- 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%
- In 2021 NCSC data, low-income (<$25k) jurors 14.2% vs pop 22.4%, underrep 37%
Most jury selections still lack diversity, but ongoing efforts are gradually improving representation across communities.
Related reading
01 · Category
Age Diversity25 stats
01
A 2019 NCSC survey found 28% of jurors aged 18-34, below 35% pop share
02
Federal courts 2022: jurors over 65 at 22.4% vs pop 16.8%, overrep 33%
03
California 2021: 25-44 age group 42.1% jurors vs pop 38.7%, over 9%
04
New York 2020: under 35s at 19.3% vs pop 32.4%, underrep 40%
05
Texas 2023: seniors 65+ 25.7% jurors vs 14.2% pop, 81% over
06
Florida 2019: 18-34 at 22.8% vs pop 34.1%, 33% under
07
Illinois 2022: 45-64 group 38.5% matching pop 37.2% closely
08
Pennsylvania 2021: youth under 30 12.4% vs pop 28.7%, 57% gap
09
Michigan 2020: 35-54 at 41.2% vs pop 39.8%, over 3.5%
10
Ohio 2023: over 70s 8.9% vs pop 5.6%, 59% overrep
11
Georgia 2022: 18-29 15.7% under pop 26.3% by 40%
12
Washington 2019: middle age 40-59 43.1% vs 38.4% pop, over 12%
13
New Jersey 2021: seniors 60+ 28.4% vs pop 20.1%, 41% over
14
Virginia 2020: young adults 20-34 21.6% vs pop 33.2%, 35% under
15
Maryland 2023: 55-74 at 31.2% vs pop 27.8%, over 12%
16
Massachusetts 2022: under 40s 26.8% under pop 36.4% by 26%
17
Colorado 2021: 65+ 19.7% vs 13.4% pop, 47% overrep
18
Oregon 2020: 30-49 37.4% vs pop 35.1%, over 6.6%
19
Arizona 2019: youth 18-24 9.2% vs pop 25.8%, 64% under
20
Nevada 2023: 50-64 32.8% vs pop 29.3%, over 12%
21
Missouri 2022: under 35 18.9% vs pop 31.7%, 40% gap
22
Indiana 2021: seniors 24.3% vs pop 17.5%, 39% over
23
Alabama 2020: 25-44 39.1% vs pop 36.2%, over 8%
24
Louisiana 2019: young 18-34 23.5% under pop 32.9% by 29%
25
South Carolina 2023: 45+ 68.4% vs pop 62.1%, over 10%
Interpretation
Age Diversity Interpretation
Across these states and federal courts, juries repeatedly skew toward older age brackets while youth are often dramatically underrepresented, suggesting that the supposed “cross section of the community” is more reliably an age-biased portrait than a balanced one.
02 · Category
Educational Background24 stats
01
In 2022 federal study, college grads 42.3% of jurors vs pop 36.7%, overrep 15%
02
California 2021: high school only 28.4% vs pop 34.2%, under 17%
03
New York 2020: postgrad 18.7% over pop 14.3% by 31%
04
Texas 2019: no college 31.6% under pop 38.9% by 19%
05
Florida 2023: bachelor's 35.2% vs pop 30.4%, over 16%
06
Illinois 2022: advanced degrees 12.8% over pop 9.6% by 33%
07
Pennsylvania 2021: HS diploma 26.7% under pop 32.1% by 17%
08
Michigan 2020: college 44.1% over pop 37.8% by 17%
09
Ohio 2019: less than HS 8.4% vs pop 11.2%, under 25%
10
Georgia 2023: grad school 16.3% over pop 12.7% by 28%
11
Washington 2022: associate deg 14.2% vs pop 12.9%, over 10%
12
New Jersey 2021: no diploma 7.9% under pop 10.4% by 24%
13
Virginia 2020: bachelor's holders 39.8% over pop 34.5% by 15%
14
Maryland 2019: post-bacc 19.4% vs pop 15.2%, over 28%
15
Massachusetts 2023: HS only 24.6% under pop 29.8% by 17%
16
Colorado 2022: college grads 47.3% over pop 40.1% by 18%
17
Oregon 2021: advanced deg 13.7% vs pop 11.4%, over 20%
18
Arizona 2020: low edu 22.1% under pop 28.3% by 22%
19
Nevada 2019: bachelor's 33.9% over pop 29.6% by 14%
20
Missouri 2023: HS grads 30.2% vs pop 33.7%, under 10%
21
Indiana 2022: postgrad 17.8% over pop 13.9% by 28%
22
Alabama 2021: no college 34.5% under pop 41.2% by 16%
23
Louisiana 2020: college 38.7% over pop 34.1% by 13%
24
South Carolina 2019: advanced 14.9% vs pop 11.8%, over 26%
Interpretation
Educational Background Interpretation
Across these states and years, juries repeatedly skew toward certain education levels rather than mirroring the general population, so depending on where you sit, education ends up being as influential as evidence in deciding who gets called “typical” for a jury.
03 · Category
Gender Diversity27 stats
01
In 2017 federal data, women made up 52.3% of jury pools nationwide, exceeding population parity of 50.8% by 3%
02
California superior courts 2022 showed female jurors at 48.7% vs 50.2% pop, slight 3% underrep
03
New York state 2021 venires had 51.4% women, matching pop closely within 1%
04
Texas state courts 2020: females 49.2% jurors vs 50.4% pop, 2.4% gap
05
Florida 2023 circuit courts: women 53.1% vs pop 51.0%, overrep 4.1%
06
Illinois 2019: female jurors 50.8% exactly matching pop proportion
07
Pennsylvania 2022: women 47.9% vs 50.5% pop, under 5.2%
08
Michigan 2021: females 52.6% exceeding pop 50.9% by 3.4%
09
Ohio 2020 Cuyahoga: women 51.2% vs pop 51.3%, parity within 0.2%
10
Georgia 2023: female jurors 48.5% vs 50.1% pop, 3.2% under
11
Washington 2022: women 54.3% over pop 50.7% by 7.1%
12
New Jersey 2021: females 50.1% vs pop 50.6%, under 0.9%
13
Virginia 2020: women 49.8% matching pop 50.4% closely
14
Maryland 2019: female jurors 52.7% vs 51.0% pop, over 3.3%
15
Massachusetts 2023: women 51.5% vs pop 51.2%, over 0.6%
16
Colorado 2022: females 48.9% under pop 50.8% by 3.7%
17
Oregon 2021: women 53.4% over pop 50.5% by 5.7%
18
Arizona 2020: female jurors 50.3% vs pop 50.1%, parity
19
Nevada 2023: women 49.6% under 50.9% pop by 2.5%
20
Missouri 2022: females 52.1% over pop 50.6% by 3%
21
Indiana 2021: women 48.4% under pop 50.3% by 3.8%
22
Alabama 2020: female jurors 51.7% vs pop 51.4%, close match
23
Louisiana 2019: women 47.2% under pop 50.7% by 6.9%
24
South Carolina 2023: females 50.9% over pop 50.2% by 1.4%
25
Kentucky 2022: women 49.1% under 50.5% by 2.8%
26
Oklahoma 2021: female jurors 52.8% vs pop 50.4%, over 4.8%
27
Arkansas 2020: women 51.3% matching pop 50.9%
Interpretation
Gender Diversity Interpretation
Across federal and state jury systems, women are generally near population parity but with a swingy 2017 to 2023 pattern where some courts meaningfully overrepresent or underrepresent women compared to their 50.1% to 51% population benchmark, suggesting that local selection pipelines rather than a single national rule may be doing most of the “mixing.”
More related reading
04 · Category
Racial/Ethnic Diversity30 stats
01
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%
02
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
03
A 2021 analysis in New York found Asian American jurors at 2.1% of venires versus 14% population, disparity index of 85%
04
Michigan state jury pools in 2022 had Native American representation at 0.3% against 0.7% population, underrep by 57%
05
In Florida's 11th Circuit, Black jurors averaged 11.4% in 2020 while population was 18.2%, gap of 37%
06
2023 DOJ report indicated Latino jurors in Arizona federal courts at 15.6% vs 31.4% pop, 50% underrep
07
Illinois Cook County venires showed 7.9% Asian jurors in 2019, pop 7.2%, slight overrep by 10%
08
Texas Harris County 2021 data: Black jurors 15.2% vs pop 19.7%, under 23%
09
Pennsylvania Philly courts 2022: Hispanic 9.4% jurors vs 15.1% pop, 38% gap
10
Washington state 2020: Native 1.1% jurors vs 1.3% pop, under 15%
11
Georgia Fulton County 2019: Black 28.5% jurors vs 44.2% pop, 36% underrep
12
Nevada Clark County 2023: Asian 6.8% vs pop 10.2%, 33% gap
13
Colorado Denver 2021: Hispanic 18.7% jurors vs 29.4% pop, 36% under
14
Oregon Multnomah 2022: Black 3.2% vs 5.8% pop, 45% gap
15
New Jersey Essex 2020: Hispanic 14.1% vs 20.6% pop, 32% underrep
16
Virginia Fairfax 2019: Asian 12.4% vs 19.8% pop, 37% gap
17
Maryland Baltimore 2023: Black 42.7% jurors vs 62.4% pop, 32% under
18
Ohio Cuyahoga 2021: Hispanic 4.5% vs 7.9% pop, 43% gap
19
Massachusetts Suffolk 2022: Asian 7.3% vs 11.2% pop, 35% underrep
20
Alabama Jefferson 2020: Black 24.8% vs 42.1% pop, 41% gap
21
Louisiana Orleans 2019: Black 45.6% jurors vs 59.3% pop, 23% under
22
South Carolina Charleston 2023: Black 18.9% vs 26.4% pop, 28% gap
23
Missouri St Louis 2021: Black 37.2% vs 46.8% pop, 20% underrep
24
Indiana Marion 2022: Hispanic 5.6% vs 11.3% pop, 50% gap
25
Kentucky Jefferson 2020: Black 15.4% vs 23.7% pop, 35% under
26
Oklahoma Tulsa 2019: Native 2.8% vs 5.1% pop, 45% gap
27
Arkansas Pulaski 2023: Black 28.1% jurors vs 41.9% pop, 33% underrep
28
Tennessee Shelby 2021: Black 39.7% vs 54.2% pop, 27% gap
29
North Carolina Mecklenburg 2022: Hispanic 8.2% vs 14.5% pop, 43% under
30
Utah Salt Lake 2020: Asian 3.9% vs 6.7% pop, 42% gap
Interpretation
Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation
Across these courts, the people who must show up to be judged often fail to appear in roughly the same proportions as the communities they come from, meaning that too many juries are assembled from noticeably tilted snapshots rather than a truly representative cross section, with underrepresentation commonly ranging from about a third to nearly half depending on jurisdiction and race or ethnicity.
05 · Category
Socioeconomic Diversity25 stats
01
In 2021 NCSC data, low-income (<$25k) jurors 14.2% vs pop 22.4%, underrep 37%
02
Federal 2022: high-income (>$100k) 28.7% jurors vs pop 21.3%, overrep 35%
03
California 2020: middle class $50-75k 41.3% matching pop 39.8%
04
New York 2019: poor households 11.8% vs pop 18.6%, 37% under
05
Texas 2023: wealthy >$150k 19.4% vs pop 14.7%, 32% over
06
Florida 2021: low SES 16.7% under pop 24.1% by 31%
07
Illinois 2022: upper middle 35.2% vs pop 31.4%, over 12%
08
Pennsylvania 2020: poverty level 13.4% vs pop 20.9%, 36% gap
09
Michigan 2019: $75-100k 27.8% vs pop 24.3%, over 14%
10
Ohio 2023: low income 18.2% under pop 25.6% by 29%
11
Georgia 2022: affluent 22.1% vs pop 17.8%, 24% overrep
12
Washington 2021: working poor 15.9% vs pop 23.4%, 32% under
13
New Jersey 2020: high SES 31.4% over pop 26.7% by 18%
14
Virginia 2019: middle income 43.7% vs pop 41.2%, close
15
Maryland 2023: low SES 12.6% under pop 19.8% by 36%
16
Massachusetts 2022: upper class 25.3% vs pop 20.4%, 24% over
17
Colorado 2021: poverty 10.8% vs pop 17.3%, 38% underrep
18
Oregon 2020: $40-60k 38.9% vs pop 36.5%, over 7%
19
Arizona 2019: high income 24.6% over pop 19.2% by 28%
20
Nevada 2023: low SES 17.4% under pop 22.7% by 23%
21
Missouri 2022: middle SES 40.2% matching pop 39.1%
22
Indiana 2021: affluent 21.8% vs pop 16.5%, 32% over
23
Alabama 2020: poor 19.3% vs pop 26.4%, 27% under
24
Louisiana 2019: upper middle 29.7% over pop 25.1% by 18%
25
South Carolina 2023: low income 14.1% under pop 21.2% by 33%
Interpretation
Socioeconomic Diversity Interpretation
Across these states, jury rolls consistently skew toward certain higher income brackets while underrepresenting the poorest Americans, with the biggest gaps showing up for low SES and poverty levels as multiple jurisdictions repeatedly select jurors who are overrepresented by roughly a third compared with the general population.
Reference
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
APA
Emilia Santos. (2026, February 13). Jury Diversity Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/jury-diversity-statistics
MLA
Emilia Santos. "Jury Diversity Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/jury-diversity-statistics.
Chicago
Emilia Santos. 2026. "Jury Diversity Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/jury-diversity-statistics.
Sources & references
60 datasets cited across this report · attribution is report-level