The King County Bar Journal in June 2026 published an article by Thomas M O’Toole and Kevin Bouly, “Persuading reverse engineers.” They did an excellent job of outlining the great truth (unknown to too many plaintiff trial lawyers) about how jurors actually reach decisions. It is a subject I have written and lectured to lawyers about for years and which the writers explain very well. I’m taking the liberty of quoting the essence of their writing about this process. See the article for their recommended strategies to deal with the reality of juror decisions. Here is a short portion of the concepts they wrote about regarding juror reasoning:

The jury verdict isn’t the last piece in a painstaking logic puzzle. It is not a decision reached after completing the picture of evidence and applying the jury instructions. For many jurors, the decision is a starting point. Emotional reactions, shaped by personal experience, gut-level impressions, and those “can’t shake it” feelings, prime jurors to argue for the verdict that feels right regardless of the evidence. Jurors decide the way you decide, and the way your kids decide. They search for shortcuts, trust their intuition, simplify complexity using their experiences, and aim for an outcome that feels fair. They explain that outcome in the language and concepts available to them. They ignore instructions and redefine terms. They ignore facts and reimagine the evidence. In many cases, verdicts are not built brick by brick. The conclusion emerges first, and then the reasoning catches up later. In their reasoning process, jurors are “reverse engineers.” Given this reality, jurors do something many trial lawyers don’t expect: they decide differently than what we were taught in law school about logical reasoning and weighing evidence to arrive at a decision. Since jurors often reverse-engineer their decisions, developing strategies to deal with this reality is important in persuading jurors.

One strategy involves how you start the story you tell about the case. Reverse engineers want to know how the story ends. They use hindsight as a shortcut to understand what happened. For example, starting with the moment a product manufacturer’s decision causes a product to harm a victim, rather than starting with a chronology, allows jurors to begin with their natural inclination to side with what feels right. Great trial lawyers show jurors why their version of the world should feel right, or better yet, make jurors feel good about their version of the events. Just as jurors reverse-engineer decisions, you can reverse-engineer effective ways to persuade. These and other strategies are important to learn in dealing with the reality of juror decision-making. Review their article for their description and discussion of other important strategies to consider using effectively.