Professor Gary S. Gildin’s article published in Syracuse Law Review’s Symposium on Advocacy & Litigation

CARLISLE, PA—The Syracuse Law Review published Professor Gary S. Gildin’s article, “Neuro-Advocacy: Harmonizing Persuasion with the Operation of the Brain,” in its Symposium on Advocacy and Litigation: Pedagogy, Practice, & Doctrine. Gildin’s article first details recent findings in neuroscience that refute how the trial process presupposes the finder of fact will perceive and use information delivered by lawyers and witnesses. Gildin then proposes how trial lawyers must reframe both the substance of their advocacy and the presentation of the opening statement, direct and cross examinations, and closing argument to align with how the brains of judges and jurors will reach a verdict.

Here is the abstract of Gildin’s article:

“The most significant contemporary advances in effective courtroom advocacy will emerge from what on the surface is an unlikely source: neuroscience. Revolutionary advances in technology for the first time allow us to see how the human brain makes decisions. The findings are wholly inconsistent with how the trial process presupposes the finder of fact will perceive and use information delivered by lawyers and witnesses. Consequently, lawyers seeking to persuade jurors (and judges) must reframe their advocacy to align with what we have learned about how the minds of these decision-makers will receive testimony and argument and use these inputs to reach their verdict.

“This article first will summarize the two signature features of the brain’s decision-making: 1) instantaneous, autonomous, and sub-conscious prediction based on comparing new inputs to past life experience, and 2) the integrated and dominant role of emotion. To coordinate the substance of what we advocate with how the mind operates, lawyers must pivot the focal point of their trial presentations away from stacking facts around the legal elements. Instead, we must tell one person’s story—one that satisfies a continuum of character, motive, and single plot and includes the human stakes. The article further proposes the most important tactics lawyers must execute at each stage of the trial—opening statement, direct examination, cross-examination, and closing argument—to make their advocacy neuro-congruent.”

The full article may be accessed at 76 Syracuse L. Rev. 599 (2026) https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/09_SYR_76_2_Gildin.pdf.

Professor Gary S. Gildin teaches courses in Trial Advocacy as well as Advanced Persuasion. Both courses rely on recent findings in neuroscience to adapt the substance and techniques of advocacy to judges, jurors, and policymakers to align with how their brains will process information and reach a decision. Professor Gildin is co-founder of Trial Story LLC, drawing on principles of neuroscience to consult with and train lawyers to find the single strongest story that the trier of fact will find not only predictable, but inevitable.