How do you know which verdict is wrong or right in order to say that though? For the same reason that other things that have unconscious influences are expr

How do you know which verdict is wrong or right in order to say that though? For the same reason that other things that have unconscious influences are expressly forbidden. A verdict should be based on the facts of the case, not on emotions incited in the jurors. That's why we forbid irrelevant anecdotes that demonstrate what a bad person an accused is. It would lead to the wrong verdict. After it's been pointed out, the point of the article is entirely obvious: if we see someone take a minute before committing murder, then we will think them of having had sufficient time to think. If it takes 5 seconds, he obviously didn't have time to consider. So if we stretch 5 seconds into a minute, a jury will conclude there was rational deliberation where there was only instinctive response. What is entirely non-obvious is supposing that brain of the average juror could 'just' compensate for his impressions based on the knowledge that it was shown in slow motion. We know they aren't capable of that with many, many other cognitive weaknesses. Sources: Influence, Thinking Fast and Slow, Predictably Irrational, ...