Abstract

Social science has been used with increasing success in a wide variety of human endeavours. For example, marketing, human relations and the delivery of health services are among the widely expanding applications of the classic disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology and social psychology. More recently, trial lawyers have also shown increased interest in applying the research findings and theoretical insights of social science to litigation. After all, every law and legal institution is based upon assumptions about human nature and the manner in which human behaviour is determined. Although trial lawyers have been using subconscious nonverbal and verbal persuasion techniques for centuries, social science has recently provided empirical support for trial practice theories that heretofore have been based solely on folklore, intuition and experience. I aim to show that principles of human behaviour derived from social psychological laboratory and field research illuminate the behaviour of actors in the courtroom, equip trial lawyers to better represent their clients, and even suggest ways in which the trial system could be improved. Some scholars claim that the increasing body of psychological literature on the effects of subconscious verbal and nonverbal persuasion has enabled trial lawyers to improve their courtroom effectiveness to the point where they can "covertly" control how fact-finders decide cases. It is true that social scientists have discovered a myriad of factors that affect judicial decision-making, but that have nothing to do with the merits of the case. However, by communicating this information to trial lawyers, the social scientists have actually decreased the likelihood that these extraneous influences will affect judicial decisions. They have identified existing barriers to rational decision-making, and have devised strategies to reduce their impact, and thereby improve the chances that fact-finders will render better, more informed, and more rational judgments.