i believe that we inherently insert ourselves in a story to a certain degree. Jurors confront masses of facts presented in a scrambled sequence, which is disorienting with substantial gaps in the record filtered through the obvious personal biases of witnesses. So how o they deal with this complexity? It turns out, they spontaneously construct a story to account for this. And choose whichever side tells a story that best matches their own. i think that we would agree that there's a lot of evidence that story telling is sticky,. right? Well, there's aA lot of anecdotal evidence. Er, well, I'm reading a paper from the journal of experimental psychology. It shows that jurors rely heavily on stories