Jury Psychology In High-Profile Cases: What The Luigi Mangione Case Reveals

Drawing on years of psycho-legal research and real-world courtroom experience, Dr. Gordon examines what the Luigi Mangione case reveals about modern jurors—from the influence of pretrial publicity and pop-culture narratives to the ways emotion, bias, and broader societal mistrust shape verdicts inside the jury room.

In today's attention economy, shaped by 24/7 news and social media, few criminal cases unfold outside the glare of public opinion. When a defendant becomes a cultural symbol and the alleged crime taps into deeply felt debates about power, profit, and justice, jury selection becomes as much a psychological challenge as a legal one, especially in the Luigi Mangione case currently dominating headlines.

We spoke with DOAR's Dr. Natalie Gordon, a social psychologist and jury consultant who advises trial teams nationwide on juror decision-making in high-profile cases. Drawing on years of psycho-legal research and real-world courtroom experience, Dr. Gordon examines what the Luigi Mangione case reveals about modern jurors—from the influence of pretrial publicity and pop-culture narratives to the ways emotion, bias, and broader societal mistrust shape verdicts inside the jury room.

Setting the Stage: The Challenge of Modern Jury Selection

Q: How do high-profile cases like Luigi Mangione's reveal the challenges of finding jurors who can separate what they've seen in the media from what they'll hear in court?

Dr. Gordon: We know from robust psycho-legal research that pretrial publicity is highly prejudicial and difficult for jurors to set aside. This is in part because jurors confuse what they hear in the media with information learned during trial—what are referred to as "source monitoring errors." So even with good intentions, our cognition is not structured to overcome such a challenging task.

When there is significant and sustained media coverage of a legal case—especially one that has resulted in deeply polarizing opinions across social media and public discourse—it can heighten jurors' emotions and create a situation in which the jury has tried the case in the court of public opinion before the trial has even begun (consider, for example, the Amber Heard case against Johnny Depp).

Perception of People and Power

Q: When a defendant becomes part of pop culture, as Mangione has, how does that shape juror expectations and emotional reactions once they enter the courtroom?

Dr. Gordon: Pop culture saturation means many jurors arrive with pre-existing narratives (e.g., that the defendant is a "folk hero" or "monster") or attitudes (e.g., moral outrage or sympathy) which can serve as frameworks for how they interpret evidence in a case.

Q: Cases involving individuals and large corporations often evoke strong emotions, including anti-corporate sentiment. From your perspective, how do those attitudes influence jurors' perceptions of victims and defendants in cases like this one?

Dr. Gordon: Anti-corporate bias is a real concern when picking a jury in cases involving large corporations. However, the Mangione case is unique because the victim, Brian Thompson, was the CEO of a large corporation (United Healthcare), and jurors' feelings of empathy for the victim are going to be influenced by their feelings towards the company. But most jurors take their job seriously and are able to separate their feelings from the task at hand—evaluating any alleged crimes from the relevant legal standards.

The Human Psychology of Decision-Making

Q: How much do personal attitudes — for example, frustration with the health care system or economic inequality — influence juror decision-making in cases like this one?

Dr. Gordon: Personal attitudes—especially strong, emotionally charged ones—can meaningfully shape how jurors interpret evidence and evaluate the defendant's credibility and intent, even though they are instructed to be impartial. In Mangione's case, this could mean that jurors think he is guilty but empathize with his motives, which may cause them to view him as less culpable and therefore less deserving of the death penalty. Death penalty cases are unique because they are the only type of criminal case in which jurors have a say in how the defendant is punished.

Q: Do you think today's jurors define "fairness" differently than they did a generation ago, particularly when a case taps into broader social debates about power, profit, and justice?

Dr. Gordon: Over the past few decades, we have seen declining trust in corporations, government, media, and the criminal legal system. Not surprisingly, we are seeing themes of government overreach and unfair prosecution come up more frequently. As a result, jurors today are more likely to look beyond the narrow facts of the case and consider broader questions of systemic fairness and proportionality.

Inside the Jury Room: Managing Emotion and Bias

Q: When a case evokes strong emotions like outrage or sympathy, how do jurors manage those feelings while still reaching evidence-based decisions?

Dr. Gordon: Jurors do an excellent job of holding each other accountable during deliberations. They pay close attention to the jury instructions and rely on them in reaching a verdict. But emotions are an important part of the decision-making process and while we don't want jurors to rely on their emotions exclusively, we don't want them to eliminate their feelings entirely either.

Q: How do you help legal teams uncover and understand jurors' unspoken assumptions — about corporations, whistleblowers, or the justice system itself — that might quietly influence deliberations?

Dr. Gordon: We often use pre-trial research (e.g., surveys, focus groups, mock trials) to help our clients understand what unspoken assumptions might be operating below jurors' conscious awareness. This, in turn, provides insight into the extent to which those feelings influence jurors' perceptions in a case. Some people are comfortable expressing their biases and prejudices openly, allowing us to identify them during jury selection and use them to normalize those feelings for jurors who may be more reluctant to share similar views.

Stepping Back: The Larger Picture

Q: Stepping back, what do you think cases like Mangione's tell us about the public mood today — about trust, accountability, and how Americans make sense of right and wrong inside the courtroom?

Dr. Gordon: Cases like Mangione's serve as a kind of cultural litmus test, reflecting what jurors—and the American people more broadly—care about today. They show us just how polarized we have become as a society, and what galvanizes us into action. In today's attention economy, cases like Mangione's show us what narratives break through—and where our moral compass is pointed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.