Science of Justice
Our science, your art.
You've got the vision; we've got the data.
Is our science the right fit for your practice? Is the earth round? Let’s find out. We have created a unique suite of machine intelligence solutions that provide you with the best information in your legal cases. We explore insightful results through our proprietary algorithms with experts with decades of experience working with behavioral science issues or collaborating with legal advisors for successful case outcomes.
Science of Justice
Two Stories That Decide Every Case.
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Why civil trials are decided by the story jurors reconstruct, not the one we intend to tell. We map the psychology behind narrative drift and share a data-driven framework to make plaintiff narratives resilient in court and in deliberation.
• lawyer’s intended structure versus juror reconstruction
• intuition, stress and simplification under cognitive load
• gap-filling with personal experience and substitute standards
• availability, defensive attribution and system justification
• emotional coherence and moral alignment as decision drivers
• patterned drift points: responsibility, causation, irrelevant salience, invented motives
• deliberation multiplier and dominance effects in group consensus
• case story alignment audit and emotional topography mapping
• structural fixes: causation sequencing, explicit motive, vivid anchors
• designing simplification tools and framing system rule-breaking
• strategic voir dire to surface values, credibility lenses and damages caps
https://scienceofjustice.com/
Every civil case you take to a jury has this fundamental split. It's not really just about the pile of evidence you have or how elegant your legal theory is. Right. It's about two stories, two parallel narratives that are happening at the same time in the courtroom.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Ross Powell That is the absolute critical insight. We're really focusing today on that gap, the divergence between the story the lawyer intends to tell.
SPEAKER_01:The perfect structured one.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell The legally perfect one, exactly. And the story the jurors actually hear, what they interpret, and then what they piece together on their own. Our research shows, pretty consistently, that even very experienced trial teams just drastically underestimate how wide that gap is.
SPEAKER_01:And the story that wins is the one the jurors reconstruct. It really doesn't matter how perfect your timeline is. If the jury's reconstruction is flawed, well, you lose. You lose based on a story you never even meant to tell. That's right. So today, we want to get into exactly why that narrative drift happens. We'll explore the behavioral mechanisms that are driving it, and then, you know, offer a framework for plaintiff teams to close that gap before they ever get to the courtroom.
SPEAKER_00:And we're going to be looking at the data-driven methods that actually translate that legal evidence into a story that can hold up under the pressure of, well, human cognition. Aaron Powell Okay.
SPEAKER_01:So let's start by defining those two stories. Yeah. What's the fundamental difference between the lawyer's intention and the juror's perception?
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell To start, let's be really precise about these two narratives. The first one is what we call the lawyer's version or the intended structure.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_00:For a plaintiff team, this is a thing you've built over months, maybe years. It's structured around very strict legal standards, right? Clear chronology, all the facts, established causation, and it follows the elements of negligence or liability to the letter.
SPEAKER_01:It's designed to be logical, intellectually airtight.
SPEAKER_00:And legally defensible. It's built to survive an appeal.
SPEAKER_01:But, and this is the key, that version assumes a level of detail and a kind of linear processing that just isn't how people think, especially under stress.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. That rigidity runs right up against the jurors' version, which we call the actual reconstruction.
SPEAKER_01:And that's a much more active process.
SPEAKER_00:It's highly active. Jurors are not just, you know, empty vessels waiting for facts. They are active meaning makers. The story they build is fundamentally shaped by their intuition, their identity, their entire life's experience.
SPEAKER_01:They're filtering everything through those personal lenses.
SPEAKER_00:Everything. They're trying to solve what they see as a moral puzzle, not act like trainee lawyers.
SPEAKER_01:So here's the unavoidable truth, then.
SPEAKER_00:Exclusively. You could give a flawless opening statement that lays out a defendant's breach of duty perfectly. But if a juror, through their own filter, decides the plaintiff maybe contributed somehow to their own injury.
SPEAKER_01:Even if there's no evidence for it.
SPEAKER_00:Even if the evidence is incredibly thin, that interpretation becomes the dominant factor. The verdict is shaped by what jurors internalize, what they perceive, and what coherent story they manage to build and carry into that deliberation room.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell So your intended story, the one you spent years building, it just ceases to exist once they start their own reconstruction.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell That's a good way to put it. It becomes raw material for their version.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell That sounds like a bit of an existential problem for a trial lawyer. If even the most rigorous legal narrative gets filtered so intensely, where does that divergence actually begin? What's the source?
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell It starts because lawyers and jurors are just using fundamentally different filters to process information. We are trained to focus on objective proof, right? On documents, on causation standards from case law.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell The technical stuff.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. Jurors, on the other hand, are focused on something much more immediate. They're looking for emotional resonance, personal relevance, and how the story lines up with their own deep-seated assumptions about fairness and responsibility.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Ross Powell They're asking if the story feels right, not just if it's proven.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Ross Powell Precisely. Is it just that's the question they're trying to answer? It's not a mathematical proof for them.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell So if you present a really complex medical timeline, the lawyer sees irrefutable proof of negligence, but the juror might see something that conflicts with their own experience of, say, trusting doctors.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell And they will default to their experience first. That emotional and experiential filter means that any complex technical explanation, whether it's product liability specs or a long chronology of corporate indifference, can just break down instantly if it clashes with a juror's internal sense of how the world should work.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell That clash. That's the gap.
SPEAKER_00:That's the gap. The space between the structured legal story and the fluid human intuitive interpretation. And that is where cases are won and lost.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell So to bridge that gap, you have to understand the cognitive framework jurors are working with. This is where behavioral science becomes, well, essential.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. You're talking about a battle between intuitive reasoning and linear detail. And in the jury box, intuition has a massive home field advantage. Aaron Powell Why is that? Because when people are faced with overwhelming complexity or time pressure or emotional stakes, which is, you know, the definition of a courtroom, they fall back on rapid intuitive judgment, system one thinking.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Ross Powell They prioritize what feels emotionally coherent over trying to process every single technical fact.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. When the case complexity becomes too much, they just revert to what's easier. Personal logic. They use their gut to simplify the mountain of information you've given them.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell And that need for simplification that brings us to the first major way they reconstruct the story, right? Yeah. Filling the narrative gaps with their own personal experience.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell Yes, mechanism one. And this is a really powerful, almost unavoidable force. When information you present is unclear or incomplete, even if you left it out on purpose, jurors have a deep psychological intolerance for that ambiguity.
SPEAKER_01:They won't just leave a blank space.
SPEAKER_00:They will not. They actively fill that void with assumptions and context from their own lives. They substitute missing facts with their own lived experience. If they don't know the industry standard for something, they'll just apply the standard from their own job.
SPEAKER_01:Can you give some examples of the specific lenses jurors use to do that?
SPEAKER_00:Oh, they're highly specific, especially in civil cases. We see jurors applying their own pain histories all the time. This is huge in cases with non-visible injuries, soft tissue, chronic pain, PTSD.
SPEAKER_01:So a juror who sprained their ankle once and recovered in a month might have trouble believing the plaintiff's pain is permanent.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. Their personal history, pain should go away in six weeks, becomes more powerful than the medical testimony you present. They also use their own medical experiences, their cultural norms about money and compensation, their professional backgrounds.
SPEAKER_01:So a small business owner on the jury might judge a massive corporation by the same standards they use for their own 10-person company.
SPEAKER_00:And that can create a completely incorrect standard of care simply because it's the only one they know. These personal lenses become the substitute evidence for the gaps in your story.
SPEAKER_01:It really brings that dot-to-dot puzzle analogy to life. You lay out the docs, the facts, but if the instructions for connecting them are even slightly unclear.
SPEAKER_00:The juror doesn't draw your picture. They grab their own personal crayon box, their own assumptions and history, and they connect the dots in a way that makes sense to them.
SPEAKER_01:And the picture they draw can be completely different, catastrophically different from what you intended.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. And that leads directly to mechanism two, which builds on this need for simplification. The power of cognitive shortcuts, or what we call heuristics.
SPEAKER_01:Mental shortcuts.
SPEAKER_00:Right. And jurors need them. They're essential tools for them to process a complex case that can go on for weeks with hundreds of exhibits. It's just too much information otherwise.
SPEAKER_01:So let's talk about some of the specific shortcuts that can really reshape a narrative in a civil liability case.
SPEAKER_00:The first one, and it's a critical one, is the availability heuristic. Basically, if an experience is recent or particularly vivid, something they saw on the news or lived through, or, and this is key, a highly emotional piece of evidence from the trial. If it's easy for them to remember, it dominates their thinking.
SPEAKER_01:It reshapes how they interpret everything that comes after it.
SPEAKER_00:Completely. A single memorable emotional story about a corporate safety failure can suddenly outweigh years of dense regulatory documents. Why? Because the story is more available to their memory. It's easier to retrieve.
SPEAKER_01:So for a plaintiff team, the strategy isn't just about presenting evidence. It's about crafting the presentation to make the right emotional moments the most available ones.
SPEAKER_00:That's it, exactly. Your opening statement has to intentionally create a vivid, emotionally salient anchor point right at the beginning. You have to ensure the human cost you want them to remember is more available than the defendant's counter narrative, which is almost always about dry procedures and compliance checklists.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, let's move on to a really tough one for plaintiffs to overcome: defensive attribution.
SPEAKER_00:This is a tricky one. It's an unconscious psychological defense mechanism. It's about protecting one's own worldview, one's own sense of safety.
SPEAKER_01:How does that work?
SPEAKER_00:If holding a defendant fully accountable for some catastrophic injury forces a juror to confront how fragile their own life is, you know, the idea that they could be harmed by a product they use every day, that's deeply uncomfortable.
SPEAKER_01:So they might subconsciously adjust the facts to feel safer.
SPEAKER_00:It becomes psychologically easier for them to shift responsibility away from the defendant and maybe onto the plaintiff. It's self-defense. It's much safer to believe the victim was a little careless or should have known better, because that maintains the juror's own comforting illusion of control in a chaotic world.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell That's like an intellectual escape hatch for them to deny their own vulnerability. How can a trial team even begin to counter that?
SPEAKER_00:You have to structure the negligence argument to make it harder for them to use that escape hatch. So instead of focusing only on the victim's terrible injury, the strategy is to show how predictable and preventable the harm was.
SPEAKER_01:You focus on the defendant's choices.
SPEAKER_00:You showed that the defendant had multiple easy, proactive ways to prevent the injury. That makes their conduct feel less like a random accident and more like a conscious, irresponsible choice. By emphasizing the defendant's superior knowledge and control, you reduce the juror's need to blame the plaintiff just to feel safe themselves.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. And the third major hurdle, especially when you're up against large institutions, is system justification.
SPEAKER_00:Right. This is the default psychological assumption most people have that large systems, corporations, hospitals, government agencies, usually act fairly incompetently. It's an internal belief that the system basically works.
SPEAKER_01:So a story about systemic negligence from a plaintiff runs right up against that belief.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell It does. And if you don't consciously overcome that belief first, the jurors will literally adjust the facts you present to make them fit with their idea that the system is fundamentally good and that errors are just, you know, isolated mistakes.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell So you have to attack the system itself, not just this one failure.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell But you have to do it carefully. The most effective way is to show that the system failed its own rules. You frame the negligence as an organizational breakdown that harmed the system's own integrity, not just the plaintiff.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell So in a product liability case, you'd show that the company violated its own standard operating procedures.
SPEAKER_00:Or ignored warnings from its own quality control people. That lets the juror hold on to their belief that the system generally works, while also accepting that this specific company broke the rules of that system.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell And finally, mechanism three, which you said might be the most powerful of all: emotional coherence and moral alignment.
SPEAKER_00:This is the ultimate internal filter. At the end of the day, jurors gravitate toward the narrative that feels morally and emotionally aligned with their own worldview. So if your case theme clashes with their sense of fairness, they will actively adjust or reinterpret the evidence rather than follow the legal structure you've laid out. They're searching for a story that feels coherent and morally right. And that sense of moral truth, who deserves what, who acted justly, that becomes the main metric for reaching a consensus in deliberations. It often trumps the technical jury instructions completely.
SPEAKER_01:All of this cognitive framework leads directly to this idea of narrative drift.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. And narrative drift is much more serious than a juror just, you know, forgetting a date or a name. It's an active process where jurors repeat, reframe, or just substantially change the case story in a way that is wildly different from your presentation.
SPEAKER_01:It's an error of interpretation that just gets worse over time.
SPEAKER_00:It compounds, exactly.
SPEAKER_01:And the thing is, this drift isn't random. When you do pretrial testing in jury simulations, you see that the breakdown points are patterned. They're predictable.
SPEAKER_00:The patterns are incredibly clear. The most common and most damaging issue we see is misassigning responsibility.
SPEAKER_01:So, for example, in a premises liability case, if you don't clearly establish why the defendant cut corners on safety.
SPEAKER_00:Like profit over safety.
SPEAKER_01:Right. If that's not clear, the responsibility can just drift over to the plaintiff because it's easier for the juror to think, well, they should have been more careful.
SPEAKER_00:We see that all the time. And in medical malpractice, the sheer complexity of the procedures can obscure a very simple error, which leads right into the next breakdown. Causation.
SPEAKER_01:The causal link is probably the most fragile part of any plaintiff's story.
SPEAKER_00:It is. The sequence that seems so obvious to the lawyer event A led to breach B, which caused injury C that can completely fall apart without relentless explicit framing.
SPEAKER_01:Lawyers assume it's self-evident from the timeline.
SPEAKER_00:But jurors don't. Without you intentionally structuring it, they can overlook the key links. They might accept that event A happened and that injury C is real, but they fail to connect them through the defendant's breach. The chain is broken.
SPEAKER_01:We saw this in a product liability simulation. The lawyer did a brilliant job proving a manufacturing defect. But in deliberations, the jury focused only on how the product was handled after the defect was found. They just missed the upstream causation entirely.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell That is a textbook example of the next indicator, elevating irrelevant facts. Jurors will often fixate on some small, minor detail that resonated with them personally, and in doing so, ignore the critical points about causation or damages.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell It could be a quick emotional moment, a perceived flaw in the plaintiff's character.
SPEAKER_00:Or a moment of what they thought was honesty from a minor defense witness. That little thing can carry huge weight in their reconstructed story just because it was emotionally available and fit their worldview. It's the small anecdotal moments that survive.
SPEAKER_01:And this is closely tied to the problem of misinterpreted motives.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. Jurors hate a vacuum. If you, as the plaintiff's team, don't explicitly spell out the defendant's motivation was agreed, indifference, a systemic failure, they will invent one.
SPEAKER_01:They'll assign a motive that was never presented.
SPEAKER_00:They'll invent a reason that fits their view of how a corporation or a professional should behave. In a pharmaceutical case, if you don't frame the motive as, say, cost cutting to please shareholders, the jury might default to seeing it as just a human mistake by a well-meaning scientist.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell Which completely changes the moral alignment of the case. One is about accountability, the other is just an accident.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. The invented motive can be devastating.
SPEAKER_01:Now, let's talk about the real nightmare scenario here, the deliberation multiplier. These individual misinterpretations are bad enough, but what happens when they get into the group dynamic of the jury room?
SPEAKER_00:That's where a small crack in your story can become a canyon. In that group setting, an incorrect assumption, someone's personal experience, a misassigned motive gets repeated by another juror and suddenly it's accepted as a fact by the group. It gains a validity it never earned from the evidence.
SPEAKER_01:I've seen that happen. One juror's off-the-cuff guess about how much physical therapy should cost becomes the group's anchor for damages.
SPEAKER_00:We modeled a deliberation where exactly that happened. A number completely outside the evidence was repeated and then accepted by four other jurors in minutes, and it cemented a very low damages award. It's the consensus effect overriding the evidence.
SPEAKER_01:And the group dynamic always favors simplicity over complexity.
SPEAKER_00:Right. Always. Complexity is replaced with a cleaner, simpler, more emotionally resonant story, even if that simplication is factually wrong. And then you have the problem of one confident, dominant juror.
SPEAKER_01:Who can reframe the whole narrative for the group?
SPEAKER_00:They can turn the entire story on its head based on their strong personality or their gut feeling, not the evidence. The lesson from modeling these deliberations is crystal clear. The story jurors come to believe becomes the story they defend.
SPEAKER_01:So if your original story fractured early on, the reconstructed one they build together is the one they'll fight for. The gap just gets wider and wider.
SPEAKER_00:Which is why the pretrial imperative for plaintiff teams is so singular. You have to close this gap with intentional behavioral preparation and early insight. You have to measure the gap before you try to cross it.
SPEAKER_01:Strong advocacy at trial isn't enough if the story's foundation is already cracked.
SPEAKER_00:It's not. And this is why we have the case story alignment audit. This is so much more than a simple focus group. It's a structured pretrial exercise designed to compare piece by piece the story you think you're telling with the story representative jurors are actually hearing and reconstructing.
SPEAKER_01:It's a clinical process.
SPEAKER_00:Very. It identifies the specific clarity gaps in your narrative that are forcing jurors to plug in their own experiences. It also maps out the emotional topography of the case. Which story beats do jurors amplify and which ones do they ignore or minimize?
SPEAKER_01:Sometimes with surprising results.
SPEAKER_00:Oh, absolutely. Sometimes evidence of a defendant's extreme wealth can actually minimize punitive damages because jurors start to think they have too much to lose or it feels unfair.
SPEAKER_01:And the audit also shows how different types of jurors interpret the same piece of information differently.
SPEAKER_00:Critically. You can test how a juror with a background in chronic pain interprets medical testimony versus, say, a juror who works in accounting. That differentiated insight is essential for crafting a single, unified narrative that can speak past all those individual filters.
SPEAKER_01:Once you have that deep insight, the next step is refining the narrative structure. You're using the behavioral data to build a story that's more resistant to those common drift mechanisms.
SPEAKER_00:That's right. It's the practical application.
SPEAKER_01:So what are the main structural adjustments a team should be making?
SPEAKER_00:First, you have to rigorously refine the sequencing and timeline. If you know the causation link is breaking down, you have to slow it down, simplify it visually, and reinforce it at every single connection point. You make the link impossible to miss.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, and what about the motivation issue?
SPEAKER_00:You have to clarify motives explicitly and repeatedly. Don't let jurors invent their own reasons for the defendant's behavior. State the moto indifference, greed, whatever it is, state it clearly, and then back it up with evidence of their internal decision making. Make the defendant's choice, not just their action, the villain of the story.
SPEAKER_01:And since emotional coherence is so powerful, you have to strengthen those emotional anchors early on.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. The human core of the plaintiff's experience, the loss, the injury, the impact, it has to be so strong and authentic that it survives being retold and scrutinized in deliberations. This means you have to weave the human cost into the factual timeline, not just save it for the damages phase at the end.
SPEAKER_01:You also have to address complexity proactively.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. You need to anticipate how technical details, medical standards, engineering specs will be oversimplified. So you build the simplification tools right into your presentation, use analogies, visual aids, anything to guide their simplification process accurately.
SPEAKER_01:That detailed pretrial work is crucial. But the final tool for closing that gap is in the courtroom itself. Strategic VorDyer.
SPEAKER_00:Right. And you have to see it as a map for reconstruction. The goal of your questions isn't just to exclude bad jurors, it's to forecast narrative drift by figuring out the story they are already carrying around in their heads.
SPEAKER_01:So VorDyer moves from being defensive to being a proactive strategic exercise.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. You use tailored questions to target assumptions. So instead of asking generic questions about injuries, you design questions to reveal hidden assumptions about non-visible injuries, like chronic pain.
SPEAKER_01:You want to know if a juror already believes if you look fine, you must be fine.
SPEAKER_00:You have to know that before they hear a single word of testimony because that belief will distort everything they hear about a soft tissue injury or PTSD.
SPEAKER_01:You also need to assess their credibility lenses. How does a juror decide if a story feels true? Is it the witness's tone, their emotion, or do they need hard data and documents?
SPEAKER_00:Understanding that lens, are they a feeling juror or a thinking juror helps you shape every single witness presentation. For one juror, you lead with emotional authenticity. For another, you lead with the cold, hard facts.
SPEAKER_01:And of course, you have to surface their values around accountability and fairness.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. You need specific questions to uncover where they stand on holding large corporations or respected professionals accountable, especially when the negligence is systemic, not malicious.
SPEAKER_01:This helps you frame the case in a moral context that already aligns with their values.
SPEAKER_00:It makes it easier for them to accept your narrative. You're looking for people who are comfortable challenging authority when the facts require it.
SPEAKER_01:In civil cases, you always have to deal with handling expert conflict.
SPEAKER_00:And War Dyer has to identify how they'll handle that. Do they prioritize simplicity, hands-on experience, or academic credentials? Will they side with the Ivy League professor or the person who's been in the field for 30 years? That insight tells you how to position your own experts.
SPEAKER_01:Finally, you have to expose the gap between the legal standards for damages and their own intuitive, non-legal ideas about conceptualizing damages.
SPEAKER_00:You have to know what their personal cap on fair compensation is. If a juror's internal limit for pain and suffering is far below what the law allows, you need to understand that bias before they go into the deliberation room. Your damages presentation has to be designed to proactively address and expand that intuition.
SPEAKER_01:So these deliberate data-driven questions give you a map of how your story is going to be reconstructed, where the assumptions will be inserted, where it might break down. It's really a roadmap to the jury's collective mind.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell To bring it all together, our central finding is this plaintiff teams get a decisive strategic edge only when they use behavioral insight to figure out the story jurors are actually building.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell Because the outcome is determined by the story that jurors reconstruct through their own filters. Intentional preparation, structural refinement based on hard behavioral data. That's what ensures the story they hear is as close as possible to the one you need them to decide.
SPEAKER_00:You know, this mastery of cognitive science is the real difference maker in modern civil litigation. Legal theory gives you the framework, the elements you need to prove, but it's the mastery of human cognition, that deep behavioral understanding of how the brain interprets facts that transforms your intended structure into a winning reconstructed narrative.
SPEAKER_01:So think about this for a moment. The most important piece of evidence in your case isn't a document you file or an expert report. It's the narrative framework that's going to guide the juror's interpretation of every single fact you present. How much of your prep time is dedicated to perfecting that internal invisible framework, and how much is just spent piling on more evidence that might not even be heard the way you intend? The legal victory doesn't go to the best advocate, it goes to the one who best anticipates and guides human judgment.
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
