This is the third in a series of articles presenting the “Theory of Core Values” as an explanation of how jurors reach their verdicts. I developed this theory over the past 40 years as a trial lawyer, law school professor, and persuasion strategy consultant. The first article criticized the “Reptile Theory,” which suggests trial lawyers obtain their best verdicts by relying on base emotions that appeal to the primitive reptilian portions of jurors’ brains. I don’t entirely reject the Reptile Theory; but it lacks needed nuance.
Instead, I believe that, while jurors must unanimously agree on the same verdict, each juror takes a different path to this conclusion based on how she individually prioritizes 11 core values. Never does a case trigger all 11 core values; but every case involves some combination of them. No individual juror is motivated by all 11 core values, but all are motivated by some combination, usually two or three. Trial lawyers can use a process I call “Mental Mining” (the subject of a future article) to determine what combination of core values will be most effective in their specific case.
