Jun 18, 2026 · 37 min · 12 segments
Send us Fan Mail What if the most important decision in your case was made before opening statements even began? Jurors do not enter the courtroom…
Exactly.
But, you know, we hold up this ideal of total neutrality in the courtroom.
Oh, the blank slate ideal.
Right.
We literally seat a panel of human beings, ask them, "Can you be fair and impartial?" And we expect a binary yes or no.
As if they could just flip a switch in their brains.
Well, exactly.
We wanna believe that jurors enter as blank slates, ready to objectively absorb neutral data points and, like, weigh them on a perfectly balanced scale.
But biologically speaking, that has to be impossible.
It is entirely impossible.
Neutrality does not exist in human cognition.
We simply do not possess the neurological hardware for it.
I mean, how could we?
Right.
The foundational cognitive psychology research from the last few decades, particularly studies focused on what is called the story model of juror decision-making, prove this definitively.
The story model.
Okay, break that down for us.
So when human beings are presented with complex, fragmented information, which is, by the way, the exact definition of a trial, where witnesses testify out of chronological order and evidence is introduced piece by piece, we do not log that data like a hard drive.
Because our brains abhor a vacuum.
Exactly.
Mm.
We instantly start organizing those fragments into a causal narrative.
We process the courtroom evidence through our lived experiences, our core moral values, and our emotional heuristics.
So I am picturing the juror's mind as, like a highly sophisticated, multi-layered filtration system rather than an empty vessel.
That's a great way to look at it.
Exactly.
But, you know, we hold up this ideal of total neutrality in the courtroom.
Oh, the blank slate ideal.
Right.
We literally seat a panel of human beings, ask them, "Can you be fair and impartial?" And we expect a binary yes or no.
As if they could just flip a switch in their brains.
Well, exactly.
We wanna believe that jurors enter as blank slates, ready to objectively absorb neutral data points and, like, weigh them on a perfectly balanced scale.
But biologically speaking, that has to be impossible.
It is entirely impossible.
Neutrality does not exist in human cognition.
We simply do not possess the neurological hardware for it.
I mean, how could we?
Right.
The foundational cognitive psychology research from the last few decades, particularly studies focused on what is called the story model of juror decision-making, prove this definitively.
The story model.
Okay, break that down for us.
So when human beings are presented with complex, fragmented information, which is, by the way, the exact definition of a trial, where witnesses testify out of chronological order and evidence is introduced piece by piece, we do not log that data like a hard drive.
Because our brains abhor a vacuum.
Exactly.
Mm.
We instantly start organizing those fragments into a causal narrative.
We process the courtroom evidence through our lived experiences, our core moral values, and our emotional heuristics.
So I am picturing the juror's mind as, like a highly sophisticated, multi-layered filtration system rather than an empty vessel.
That's a great way to look at it.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.