ABSTRACT
The belief in a factfinder's ability to render a fair and impartial verdict is a cornerstone of most judicial systems. As part of their task, factfinders are expected to be able to set aside biases and, consequently, base their verdicts only on the evidence presented (Menon, 1995; Sand, Siffert, Loughlin, Reiss, & Batterman, 1977). However, researchers and legal experts have long questioned the typical factfinder's ability to comprehend and reach a fair decision when faced with a complex court case (Strawn & Munsterman, 1982). Many argue that one's ability to render a fair and impartial verdict is affected by a number of potentially extra-legal biasing factors, including opening and closing arguments (Pitera, 1991; Pyszczynski & Wrightsman, 1981). Thus, inexperienced factfinders, such as jurors, are instructed not to consider the content of arguments as evidence. However, there still exist extra-legal biases that are difficult to eliminate simply with the use of standard procedures.
