By Kirstin Abel (February 22, 2018, 4:47 PM EST) -- As trial lawyers, we sometimes pretend that our trials are conducted in a vacuum. In our perfect world, the jury listens carefully — and objectively — to the evidence we put on and the opinions of our experts; gives particular credence to science, of course; is persuaded by our argument; and weighs it all against the other side's evidence. This mythical jury checks its biases at the door, does not consider facts outside the evidence, and reaches a verdict in our favor. No matter how earnest or wishful our beliefs, psychology and social science tells us this simply is not true. Instead, jurors come to us with strongly held opinions and beliefs, framing every aspect of the way they view a case. They sometimes challenge irrefutable scientific fact and disregard evidence that does not conform with their personal "truth" in favor of alternative facts. Why does this happen and how do we account for their bias?...