AI Jury Selection in Minnesota Civil Trials

What does AI jury selection software actually do?

AI jury selection software sorts information about the people on a jury panel into profiles, scores, or suggested follow-up questions. It does not pick the jury. Under Minnesota’s rules, the judge decides who asks the questions and rules on challenges, and the parties make the strikes.

The tools generally work from two sources: the panel information the court gives the parties, and public information about panel members, such as news stories or public social media posts. A vendor may also run a mock jury or a survey of the local population and compare the panel against those results.

The federal court in Minnesota, in its October 2025 GenAI FAQ, warns that generative AI responses may be plausible in appearance but inaccurate, and that generative AI cannot check the accuracy of its own responses. A score that matches the wrong person, or that leans on a trait the law forbids you to use, can cost you a juror or a strike. I suggest treating any score as a reason to ask a question in voir dire, because what a juror says in court is the record your strikes will be judged on.

What juror information does a Minnesota court give the parties?

Before voir dire, a Minnesota court must give each party a list of the panel members drawn from their juror qualification questionnaires. Under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 814(a)(2), the list includes each person’s name, city of residence, occupation, education, children’s ages, spouse’s occupation, birth date, reported race and Hispanic origin, gender, and marital status.

Those fields come from the juror qualification questionnaire. Under Rule 807(d), the questionnaire “should request only that information essential for” four listed purposes, one of which is “providing basic background information including date of birth, race, gender, occupation, educational level, address, marital status, occupation of spouse, and the age(s) of any children.” Three limits matter for an AI tool:

1. Confidential records. Rule 814 provides that juror records and questionnaire contents “shall not be disclosed except as provided by this rule.”
2. Court restrictions. In a civil case the court may restrict “the names or other identifying information of the jurors in the interests of justice,” which leaves a tool less to work with.
3. Supplemental questionnaires. Minn. R. Civ. P. 47.01 provides that “Supplemental juror questionnaires completed by jurors shall not be accessible to the public unless formally admitted into evidence in a publicly accessible hearing or trial.”

Rule 814 does not say how far ahead of trial the list must arrive, so I suggest having any analysis ready to run on a short schedule. Race and gender are on the list, which is one reason the strike rules discussed below matter for software.

How does voir dire work in a Minnesota civil jury trial?

In a Minnesota civil jury trial, voir dire is the questioning of panel members, followed by challenges. Minn. Stat. § 546.10 provides that “either party may examine the juror in reference to qualifications” before challenging, and that enough jurors are called “so that six shall remain after the exercise of the peremptory challenges.”

The sequence runs this way:

1. Who questions. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 47.01, the court “may permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination” or may conduct it itself, and if the court questions, it “shall permit the parties or their attorneys to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper.”
2. Challenges for cause. Either side may ask the court to remove a juror who cannot be fair, as discussed below.
3. Peremptory challenges. Under § 546.10, “Each party shall be entitled to two peremptory challenges, which shall be made alternately beginning with the defendant.” All plaintiffs count as one party and all defendants as the other. When two or more defendants have adverse interests, the court may allow each side of that conflict up to two peremptory challenges if it is “satisfied that the due protection of their interests so requires.”
4. The verdict. Under Minn. Stat. § 546.17, a civil jury “may return a verdict, after six hours of deliberation, upon an agreement by five-sixths of its number.”

The trial order can change the numbers you plan around. In one Hennepin County business case I have set for a jury trial, the court’s trial order provides that, unless a party files a written objection, the parties are treated as agreeing that a verdict by six of seven jurors may be returned after six hours of deliberation. Minnesota’s civil rules no longer use separate alternate jurors (Rule 47 advisory committee comment), so I suggest checking your trial order for the number of jurors and the verdict rule before planning strikes.

What limits apply to researching jurors online?

Minnesota’s limits on researching jurors fall on contact and harassment. Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.5(a) provides that before trial a lawyer “shall not, except in the course of official proceedings, communicate with or cause another to communicate with” anyone the lawyer knows to be on the panel.

Three other parts of Rule 3.5 shape what a research vendor may do:

1. Investigation. Rule 3.5(d) provides that a lawyer “shall not conduct or cause another, by financial support or otherwise, to conduct a vexatious or harassing investigation of a juror or prospective juror.”
2. Family members. Rule 3.5(e) extends these restrictions to “communications with or investigations of members of a family of a juror or prospective juror.”
3. During trial. Rule 3.5(b)(1) carries the ban on communicating with jurors through the trial itself.

A lawyer cannot avoid these limits by using a vendor. Rule 8.4(a) makes it misconduct to violate the rules “through the acts of another,” and Rule 5.3(c)(1) makes a lawyer responsible for a nonlawyer’s conduct that would violate the rules if the lawyer “orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies” it. I suggest that every vendor engagement state in writing that the vendor will send no friend request, follow, connection request, or message to any panel member or family member, as a precaution under Rule 3.5(a)’s bar on causing another to “communicate with” a panel member.

Why can an AI score not justify a peremptory strike?

A peremptory strike in a civil trial may not rest on a juror’s race or gender, and a software score built on those traits cannot supply a lawful reason for the strike. In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991), a negligence case tried in federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigant’s racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial.”

In J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), the State of Alabama brought a paternity and child support case in its own courts and made the challenged strikes. The Court extended the equal protection limit on peremptory strikes to gender: “gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality.” The same opinion preserves ordinary strikes: “Parties still may remove jurors who they feel might be less acceptable than others on the panel.” When an explanation is required, it “must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender, and the proffered explanation may not be pretextual.”

Minnesota has written a detailed objection procedure into its criminal rules. Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 7 requires the striking party to “articulate the reasons” for a challenged strike. Under subd. 7(2), a party may object “at any time before the jury is sworn,” and the objection “must be decided before the jury is sworn.” The court weighs, among other things, “whether other prospective jurors provided similar answers but were not the subject of a peremptory challenge.” If race, ethnicity, or gender “could reasonably be viewed as a factor,” the court “must sustain the objection and deny the peremptory challenge.” That rule is written for criminal cases. Section 546.10 provides that civil challenges are made “for the same causes and in the same manner as in criminal trials,” but neither text names the other, so I suggest asking the trial judge which objection procedure will govern a civil trial.

I suggest that each strike rest on something the juror said or wrote, because those are the facts a court can compare across jurors. I suggest asking any vendor to confirm that its model uses neither race nor gender, because a strike that tracks either can be challenged. Separately, Minn. Stat. § 593.32, subd. 1, provides that “A citizen shall not be excluded from jury service in this state on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, economic status, marital status, sexual orientation, or a physical or sensory disability.”

How do challenges for cause differ from peremptory strikes?

A challenge for cause removes a juror for a reason the judge accepts, chiefly that the juror cannot be fair. A peremptory strike removes a juror without a stated reason, subject to the race and gender limits above. Section 546.10 ties civil cause challenges to the grounds used in criminal trials.

The main ground in Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 5 is that the juror’s state of mind “satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party.” The rule also lists relationships to a party or an attorney, among other grounds.

The practical difference for an AI tool is the source of proof. Under that rule the juror’s state of mind must satisfy the court, so a tool’s prediction that a juror leans against your company does not support a cause challenge by itself; the juror’s answers in court can. That is where a tool can help: by flagging a background fact your attorney can ask about. One disability provision is specific: under § 593.32, subd. 2, the statute does not restrict a strike for cause “based on a showing that a physical or sensory disability will impair the juror’s ability to try a particular case.”

What should a business ask a jury analytics vendor before hiring one?

Before hiring a jury analytics vendor, I suggest finding out where the juror data will go, who will see it, how the vendor gathers public information, and what traits its model weighs. Rule 814 provides that juror records “shall not be disclosed except as provided by this rule,” and your attorney carries professional duties for the vendor’s work.

The questions I suggest putting to any vendor, with the rule behind each:

1. Where is the panel list stored, and who can see it? Rule 814’s disclosure sentence covers juror records, and Rule 47.01 provides that supplemental juror questionnaires completed by jurors “shall not be accessible to the public unless formally admitted into evidence in a publicly accessible hearing or trial.” As a practice point, I suggest settling storage and access in the vendor’s written terms.
2. Is your case information kept confidential? Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(c) requires a lawyer to “make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of” client information. The federal court’s GenAI FAQ similarly advises against entering privileged, confidential, or otherwise sensitive information into a generative AI tool if data inputs may be retained by the tool.
3. Does anyone on the vendor’s team contact panel members or their families? The answer should be no, under Rule 3.5(a) and (e).
4. Which traits does the model use? Any use of race or gender is a problem for the reasons above.
5. Can the vendor explain a score in terms of facts about the juror? An unexplained number gives your attorney nothing to say if a strike is challenged.

The comment to Rule 5.3 calls for a lawyer using outside services to make reasonable efforts so that “the services are provided in a manner that is compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations.” I suggest hiring the vendor through your attorney, so those duties attach to the engagement from the start.

When does Minnesota’s courtroom recording rule limit AI tools during voir dire?

Minnesota bars audio and visual recording in the courtroom during trial, so an AI tool that records voir dire to analyze it is not permitted. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.01 provides that “no visual or audio recordings, except the recording made as the official court record, shall be taken in any courtroom” during a trial or hearing, other than under the exceptions in Rule 4.02.

Even when a judge authorizes recording of a civil trial under Rule 4.02(c), Rule 4.02(c)(i) provides that “There shall be no visual or audio coverage of jurors at any time during the trial, including voir dire.” A tool that transcribes panel answers as they are spoken depends on an audio recording the rule prohibits.

The rule defines coverage or recording to include “film, video, livestreaming, and still photography.” Notes a team member types during voir dire are none of those, and the team can feed them into an analysis tool during breaks. I suggest raising any in-court technology with the judge before trial, because the judge controls the courtroom and the rules treat recording as the exception.

How is jury selection different in federal court in Minnesota?

Federal court in Minnesota gives each party three peremptory challenges instead of two, and, as in state court, the judge decides how much of the questioning the attorneys do. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1870, “In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges.” The court may treat several defendants or plaintiffs as one party, or allow additional challenges.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 47(a), the court “may permit the parties or their attorneys to examine prospective jurors or may itself do so.” If the court examines the jurors, the rule provides that it “must permit the parties or their attorneys to make any further inquiry it considers proper, or must itself ask any of their additional questions it considers proper.” Anything a tool flags reaches the panel through those questions, so your attorney’s proposed questions should be submitted in the form the judge’s order requires.

The Edmonson rule on race-based strikes arose in federal court and applies there directly. On juror contact, D. Minn. LR 47.2(a) provides: “Unless the court orders otherwise, a party or anyone acting for a party must not directly or indirectly contact a juror, including after the juror has been discharged from service.” On disclosure, the court’s October 2025 GenAI FAQ states that the District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings. If your case may be removed to federal court, I suggest planning for both sets of rules until the court is known, because the strike count differs and Fed. R. Civ. P. 48(b) provides that “Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the verdict must be unanimous and must be returned by a jury of at least 6 members.”

How should a business prepare for jury selection before trial?

Preparation for jury selection starts well before the panel list arrives: with the themes of the case, the juror attitudes that would help or hurt, and the questions that would reveal them. An AI tool works best as one input to that plan, not a substitute for it.

A practical sequence:

1. Juror risks. The evidence from Minnesota civil discovery and any summary judgment ruling show which issues the jury will decide, and so which juror attitudes could help or hurt your company.
2. The jury pool. When a business owner from another state asked me whether to sue a large Minnesota company in Minnesota or at home, one factor I named was the potential for juror bias in favor of a major local employer. Minn. Stat. § 593.31 states the policy that jurors be “selected at random from the broadest feasible cross section” of the area the court serves, so the county you sue in shapes the panel you get.
3. Voir dire questions and questionnaires. Rule 47.01 lets the court allow your attorney to question jurors or to supplement the court’s questions.
4. The trial order. A trial order can set filing dates for jury instructions and the verdict form, and it can change the verdict rule.
5. A reason for each strike. I suggest writing down the juror’s answer that supports each strike, so your attorney can state it if the strike is challenged.

Jury instructions also take early work, including any plan for objecting to jury instructions. If your contracts include a jury trial waiver, I suggest checking it first, because a valid waiver may mean the case is tried to a judge.

Using AI in Your Jury Selection

AI software can help your trial team sort panel information and decide what to ask, but it does not change Minnesota’s rules on juror data, juror contact, or strikes. The parties receive the panel list under Rule 814, the lawyer-conduct rules bar contact with panel members, and each strike must rest on something other than race or gender. A strike your attorney can explain from the juror’s own answers is easier to defend than a strike based on a score.

For how jury selection fits into the rest of a case, see my overview of business litigation in Minnesota. If your company is preparing for a jury trial and you would like a second look at a jury selection plan or a vendor’s proposal, email me at [email protected] with a short description of the case, the court it is in, and the trial date.