Survival isn’t always a deliberate, rational decision.
Sometimes, it’s instinct.
Fight or flight.
Freeze or flee.
Claw, bite, or play dead.
In the wild, these responses keep animals alive.
In the courtroom, they’re being weaponized to win cases.
What should be a pursuit of justice—where facts, law, and reasoned deliberation determine outcomes—is being hijacked by a strategy that preys on a juror’s most primal instincts.
Enter Reptile Theory, a plaintiff’s attorney technique spreading through the trial bar like wildfire.
This strategy bypasses logic, taps into fear, and triggers jurors’ deep-seated survival instincts—not to weigh admissible evidence fairly but to push for massive, emotionally driven verdicts.
A case isn’t just about damages anymore—it’s about danger. If a defendant’s actions harmed one person, what’s stopping it from hurting you? The verdict isn’t just about justice; it’s framed as self-preservation.
This isn’t just advocacy—it’s psychological manipulation.
By exploiting the amygdala, the ancient part of the brain wired for survival, attorneys sidestep reason and play directly on fear. And it works. That’s why corporations and defense attorneys are scrambling to counter it.
But should we allow fear to dictate verdicts? Is this about justice—or a dangerous erosion of the fairness and integrity of jury trials?
Juries exist to weigh evidence, apply the law, and ensure justice—not to serve as a tool for emotional exploitation.
The courtroom should not become a jungle where verdicts go to the best fear-monger.
The question remains: Will we uphold justice, or let fear decide?
Here is a link to a web article:
https://lewisbrisbois.com/newsroom/legal-alerts/the-reptile-theory-in-practice