Oftentimes, our ultimate goal when interacting with others is to change their mind and eventually their behavior. This change is called persuasion (Brock & Green, 2005). The judicial process is itself a display of social interaction with the ultimate goal of persuasion, from the authoritative figure of the judge to the prosecution and defense attorney's attempts to convince the jury to adopt their version of events. Even interactions between jury members during deliberation are a display of persuasion. In appreciation of this fact, the present article offers some recent findings in persuasion as potential tools to be utilized in the courtroom.

Early findings on persuasion found that, depending on the audiences' ability and motivational state, the presentation of strong arguments and/or a perceived credible source (ie, an expert) tended to be the most effective approach (for a review in relation to the courtroom, see Williams & Jones, 2007). This makes intuitive sense; the more arguments you can produce from a reputable source, the more persuasive you should be. However, recent research suggests that what you are saying is not the only factor that can make a difference. How and when you present your arguments can make or break your persuasive attempts.