First the Hunch, Then the Law
A Texas judge once admitted that he decided cases by feeling and then reasoned his way back to the statute. A century of psychology has been proving him right—and complicating what, if anything, we ought to do about it.
In 1929, at the end of a long and tangled case tried without a jury, a federal judge in south Texas announced from the bench that, since the cramped modern notion of a judge’s duty denied him the relief of his “little, small dice,” he would take the matter under advisement, brood over it, and wait for his hunch. Among the lawyers in the room was a young one named Joseph C. Hutcheson, Jr., lately emerged, as he later put it, from the classic gardens of a university, where he had been taught to revere the judge as an austere figure whose intellect was “a cold logic engine.” To Hutcheson the old man’s announcement sounded like a joke, and a poor one.
Eleven years on the bench cured him of the laughter. In an essay for the Cornell Law Review bearing the disarming title “The Judgment Intuitive,” Hutcheson confessed that he had come to work in precisely the old judge’s way. He had once possessed, he wrote, “a slot machine mind,” a mind that searched out legal categories and, having found them, worshipped them. No longer. After studying the record, he gives his imagination play and waits for “the feeling, the hunch—that intuitive flash of understanding which makes the jump-spark connection between question and decision.” Only then does he reach for the statutes and the precedents, to raise a structure of reasons beneath a conclusion he already holds. And he drew a distinction that has unsettled the law ever since. He was speaking, he insisted, of the decision itself, “as opposed to the apologia for that decision”—the verdict, that is, and not the rationalization a judge later drapes over it.
A reader in 1929 might have filed this under judicial eccentricity. A hundred years of research into the deciding mind invites a gentler reading, though not a more comfortable one. Hutcheson was not a worse lawyer than his colleagues. He was a more honest one. And what he described in a single courtroom the science of decision has since recognized as a rule. Marketers, of all people, have a blunt name for it: “feel, decide, justify.” Most choices are made on intuition and emotion, and the deliberate mind arrives afterward, with the paperwork. A verdict is no exception to this. It is the most consequential instance of it.
The proposition this essay circles is, then, provocative, but defensible with the caution that any claim about the mind deserves. A judgment is a psychological act, retrofitted with law. The decision is born of intuition, feeling, and reasoning steered toward a result sensed in advance; only afterward is it translated into the language of rule and doctrine. The written opinion is not a transcript of the deciding. It is a reconstruction, or, as Hutcheson would have it, an apologia.
It is worth saying at once what the claim is not. It does not hold that judges decide on whim, or that law is mere ornament. It holds something subtler and better documented: that the order in which a judge actually thinks is the reverse of the order in which he presents his thinking. The rest is an attempt to show how firmly that reversal is supported, where the certain shades into the merely probable, and why the correct diagnosis does not produce the conclusion one might expect.
* * *
The ideal Hutcheson punctured has a distinguished pedigree. It is Montesquieu’s image of the judge as the bouche de la loi, the mouth of the law: a neutral conduit through which the rule descends onto the facts, uncontaminated by whoever happens to be wearing the robe. In this picture, a verdict is reached by subsumption. Fix the rule, fix the facts, derive the conclusion with the force of logic. The personality of the judge, his mood and biography and temperament, matter to the outcome about as much as the cut of his robe.
The picture is seductive not because it is true but because it is needed. The legitimacy of judicial power rests on a promise that the verdict issues from the law and not from the man who applies it. Legal formalism, the orthodoxy of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth, treated that promise not as a regulative ideal but as a description of fact: the law was supposed to be determinate enough to manufacture correct answers on its own.
The American legal realists began with an observation at once banal and seditious: a judge is a human being first and a technician of law second. Their patron saint was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who had opened The Common Law by declaring that “the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” Jerome Frank, a federal appellate judge and the movement’s most radical member, pressed the intuition further, reaching, perhaps first in jurisprudence, for psychoanalysis. The worship of legal certainty, he argued, is a grown man’s lingering worship of his father; the law has become a father-substitute. What looks like a rational decision is “really a judicial ‘hunch'” founded on the judge’s reactions to the facts; the judge is, in Frank’s phrase, “a witness of the witnesses,” heir to every frailty of a mind trying to reconstruct a vanished event.
Max Radin had put the engine of the thing plainly back in 1925, and Hutcheson quoted him with approval: the judge, having heard the case and sensed that it ought to come out one way or another, then goes hunting for a legal category to receive it. The decision runs forward, from the hunch. The justification runs backward. “The ratiocination,” Radin said, “appears only in the opinion.”
* * *
Realism, however, was a diagnosis without a physiology. It knew that something was wrong with the syllogism, but it could not say how the judging mind actually worked. The mechanism arrived with cognitive psychology, and specifically with the theory of two systems that Daniel Kahneman made famous. System 1 is fast, automatic, intuitive, largely unconscious; System 2 is slow, effortful, deliberate. Mapped onto judging, the division is unnervingly clean: System 1 decides the case, matching its particulars to stored patterns and to a feeling for what is fair, while System 2 manufactures and weighs the legal arguments for a verdict already reached.
In easy cases, where the law speaks in one voice, the deliberate system can override the intuitive one. But here is a finding that scatters the comforting notion that thinking always corrects feeling. Against common sense, painstaking deliberation can sometimes deepen a bias rather than dissolve it, and experts may be the most exposed of all. For a judge the implication stings: training does not so much launder the hunch as dress it better. The abler the lawyer, the more persuasive the apologia.
The mechanism runs deeper than two speeds. Studies of coherence-based reasoning show the process moving in both directions at once. The premises do not merely fix the conclusion; the conclusion, once provisionally entertained, reaches back and reshapes how the judge sees and weighs the facts. The mind cannot abide a tie. As a tentative outcome takes form, the evidence rearranges itself to support it: what helps grows vivid, what hinders fades, and a case that began as a near thing comes to feel inevitable, though not a single new argument has arrived. Hence the black box. The opinion exposes only the layer of reasoning offered in support of the conclusion, never the processes that produced it—and the judges themselves, who describe their own work as logical, generally have no access to the rest. The concealment is not hypocrisy. It is a property of introspection, which reaches the outputs of thought but not its causes.
* * *
Were the thesis confined to theory, one could shelve it among the philosophical curios. The trouble is that it can be measured. A landmark study put a hundred and sixty-seven federal magistrate judges through five cognitive illusions, and all five moved them. The judges shrugged off framing and representativeness more readily than laypeople do, but anchoring, hindsight, and a self-serving bias caught them all the same. The authors’ conclusion was unsentimental: judges are human, and, like the rest of us, they fall for the illusions that yield systematic error. Training and experience are only a partial shield.
The best-documented illusion is anchoring, the mind’s overattachment to the first number it meets. In that same study of federal judges, half were asked, before fixing damages, to rule on a defense claim that the harm fell short of the seventy-five-thousand-dollar threshold a case must clear to reach federal court; merely entertaining the figure worked as an anchor and dragged the later awards downward. In another experiment a prosecutor’s sentencing demand shifted verdicts even after the subjects were told it was chosen at random; in the most startling version, seasoned judges rolled a pair of dice before recommending a sentence, and those who rolled high recommended more time. The dice knew nothing about guilt. They spoke anyway.
Alongside anchoring runs the availability heuristic: we judge how common a thing is by how readily an example comes to mind, so that publicized dangers loom larger than they are. More insidious is confirmation bias, which in a criminal trial hardens into tunnel vision: a judge who inherits a case from investigators already committed to a story of guilt struggles to weigh the exculpatory evidence on its own terms. And there is hindsight bias, which leads a judge who already knows the ending to overstate what the defendant should have foreseen—a particularly expensive error in negligence cases and on appeal, where a past choice is judged through the lens of its known outcome.
Then come the influences that ought to carry no weight at all and carry plenty. Heat makes sentences harsher, probably through irritation and a thinning of empathy; across five million French rulings, judges went easier on a defendant’s birthday. In Louisiana, judges who had attended the state university sentenced more harshly after the football team lost a game it was expected to win—which translated, in the aggregate, into more than thirteen hundred additional days of confinement or supervision assigned, in effect, to a Saturday-afternoon score. The added severity fell almost entirely on Black juveniles.
These effects share a substrate that the psychology of stress now maps in some detail. Under load, the brain dials down its goal-directed mode and dials up a habitual autopilot; the tired or harried decider reaches for routine because routine is cheap, and people choose more riskily on an empty stomach. The most famous experiment in this vein concerns hunger, and it is the one that calls for the most caution. An Israeli parole board appeared to grant release about sixty-five percent of the time at the start of a session, sliding toward zero just before each food break, then snapping back. The story is too neat to be wholly true; a reanalysis by Weinshall-Margel and Shapard pointed to the way the docket was ordered and to the sequence in which unrepresented prisoners came before the board, and later simulations traced much of the curve to scheduling rather than to hunger. The depletion mechanism remains contested. What survives is humbler, and sufficient: fatigue, caseload, and the hour of the day can bend a decision. The reassuring news is that a verdict probably does not hinge on whether the judge has eaten, in the way a viral chart once implied. The unsettling news is that it hinges on a great deal else.
* * *
Beneath the cognitive layer lies something else again. The ideal of the dispassionate judge rests on two fictions: that feeling necessarily breeds injustice, and that a just arbiter must be without feeling. Neuroscience has undone both, and more thoroughly than the partisans of the cool head suppose. Antonio Damasio showed, in Descartes’ Error, that in patients with damage to the prefrontal cortex, in the absence of somatic markers—the emotional flags that compress experience into appraisal—deciding becomes nearly impossible. Dispassion is not the summit of reason; where illness has produced it, it produces paralysis and worse choices, not better ones. Emotion is not a contaminant of the process. It is a condition of it.
The question, then, is not whether feeling enters a verdict but how. Under arousal the amygdala can outrun the prefrontal cortex, forcing a reaction before judgment has spoken. A judge who feels disgust at a lurid account of violence sentences measurably more harshly, and the response is hard to resist by will, because it precedes the cognitive appraisal it distorts. Useful here is the line psychology draws between anticipated and incidental emotion: a mood with nothing to do with the case—the heat, a lost game—colors the verdict as incidental feeling, while anticipated regret, the dread of being reversed, steers it as the emotion of a foreseen future.
Empathy poses a kindred problem, turned inside out. As a faculty it is at once a source of understanding and of distortion: it lets a judge grasp the parties’ predicament and soften a rule whose strict application would be grossly unjust, yet it is selective. We pity more easily those who resemble us, and the selectivity quietly apportions mercy and severity by a key the apportioner cannot see.
The best-studied key is race. On a test of implicit association, four out of five white judges more strongly linked Black faces with negative words, and in vignettes that primed race subtly they imposed harsher penalties on Black defendants than on white ones. The decisive nuance is this: when the defendant’s race was made explicit, white judges showed no such bias. The problem is not overt racism, which conscious control can suppress, but the association working below awareness, which cannot be switched off by decree. An earlier study of the federal courts told the same story in numbers: white defendants averaged 32.1 months, Hispanic defendants 54.1, Black defendants 64.1, the disparity arising chiefly from downward departures granted less often to the Black ones. Those figures are decades old, but the pattern has not faded: the Sentencing Commission’s 2023 report found Black men serving terms 13.4 percent longer, and Hispanic men 11.2 percent longer, than white men for comparable offenses.
Less dignified keys are at work too. Black inmates with the most Afrocentric features received longer sentences, other factors held constant, and in related research less attractive defendants drew harsher penalties than attractive ones, most of all where the evidence was ambiguous. This is the halo effect: we credit the good-looking with honesty and competence, and the baby-faced with innocence, and it bleeds into our reckoning of credibility and guilt. The representativeness heuristic does the rest, prompting us to gauge the odds of guilt by how neatly a defendant fits the prototype of a criminal.
The farther one moves from the individual, the sharper the pattern grows. A judge’s politics shape sentencing in value-laden cases: in one state, Republican appointees sentenced more harshly than Democratic ones, the gap widening to roughly a third in rape cases, and at the federal level party interacted with the race and sex of defendants. External pressure adds its weight: heavier media coverage of crime tracks with stiffer sentences, as if publicity, through that same availability heuristic, pushed punishment to the front of the judicial mind.
The plainest index of all this is inter-judge disparity—the phenomenon in which similar offenders draw markedly different sentences depending solely on which judge they happened to draw. After the decision that made the federal sentencing guidelines advisory—United States v. Booker, in 2005—the disparity widened, a natural experiment confirming that institutional constraint suppresses a judge’s subjectivity without erasing it. And if it can be suppressed, it can be suppressed. One finding here carries hope: as the share of Black judges in a courthouse rose, the white judges grew less likely to incarcerate Black defendants. The substrate is not destiny. It answers to the composition of the bench.
* * *
How does all of this reach an opinion written entirely in the language of law? One formal account is salience theory: the judge overweights whatever features of a case stand out, because appraisal is comparative—the case is measured against an implied distribution of similar cases, and the attributes that depart from that distribution seize a disproportionate share of attention and weight, however legally irrelevant they may be. Motivated reasoning supplies the rest. A judge for whom an outcome is morally congenial, politically congruent, or simply convenient more readily credits the arguments for it, distinguishes the awkward precedents, and develops the helpful ones. Add the fear of reversal, best understood as loss aversion—the prospect of being overturned weighing more than an equivalent reward—and you get, by turns, cautious deference and ingenious construction. Hutcheson described it without flinching. In a patent case, he recalled, he waited until he felt that there had been invention and infringement, and then, “by the practice of logomachy,” so bewordled his opinion in support of the hunch that he satisfied both the lawyer who trusted intuition and the lawyer who trusted logic. Both sides accepted the result. This is not cynicism. It is description.
Now the thesis can be stated in full, having been earned. The real sequence runs: the outcome feels right, so the facts that support it become salient and credible, so a rule is found to license it. Hutcheson named it bluntly—the judge works his judgment backward, “from a desirable conclusion back to one or another of a stock of logical premises.” The opinion reverses that sequence and presents it as deduction: given the rule and given the facts, the result must follow. The text of the judgment is a reconstruction, not a record. What began, at its experiential source, as a human response to a human situation is set down as the product of logical subsumption.
* * *
Here one ought to stop and mount the strongest possible case against the thesis, because in its boldest form it is probably untenable. Tellingly, the gravest objections were lodged by Frank’s own contemporaries.
The first is decisive, and it turns on a confusion of two orders, causation and justification. That a verdict was caused by intuition, feeling, and motivated reasoning does not make it legally unjustified, or wrong. The realists’ critics accused them precisely of confusing explanation with justification, which is also an old logical point: from premises describing what is, one cannot derive a conclusion about what ought to be. A theorem dreamed in sleep is not, for that reason, less valid. A hunch can land on the right answer, and the reasoning that follows it can be sound. The strong, deflationary thesis—that law does no work and the opinion is pure decoration—is a different and far harder claim than the modest one, that intuition usually comes first.
The second objection concerns scope, and here the soberest voice is a psychologist’s. Neil Vidmar cautions that what sets judges apart from laypeople is training and institutional constraint, that “precedent and statutory requirements often constrain psychological dispositions,” and that the absence of real-world context in laboratory simulations “may artificially inflate the effects of biases,” which in a genuine trial, amid other evidence and the arguments of counsel, may prove negligible. The most spectacular effects gather in hard cases and in the lab. The thesis is strongest exactly where the law is weakest, and one would overreach to infer from a handful of contested cases a verdict on judging as a whole. Yet one should not take too much comfort, either, for it is precisely the expert’s deliberation that can deepen a bias rather than remove it.
The third objection is the most uncomfortable, because it turns on the diagnosis itself. If all reasoning is secondary rationalization, then so is the reasoning of the psychologists who say so, and so is this essay. A kindred difficulty was put soberly long ago: a researcher’s feelings color his reading of the facts, above all when he is at once the gatherer and the appraiser. The strong thesis devours itself. The way out runs through the moderate version: intuition and motivated reasoning shape decisions, especially under uncertainty, but reason is not an epiphenomenon, and it can, sometimes, correct the hunch.
Honesty requires, then, a ledger in three columns. It is certain that judges are human, that the catalogued biases operate in court, and that appraisal is neurologically inseparable from emotion. It is probable that these factors move outcomes at the margin, producing measurable disparities, and that the intuitive verdict often precedes the legal argument. It is contested, and very likely overstated, that a verdict is a rationalization in the strong sense, the sense in which law means nothing. The thesis of this essay lives in the first two columns, not the third.
* * *
From a correct diagnosis comes a tempting false lesson: since the human is fallible, replace him with an algorithm. It is the wrong lesson, and psychology explains best why. If, stripped of its emotional signals, a deciding mind sinks into paralysis, then a perfectly dispassionate judge would be not an ideal but a patient. Empathy, intuition, moral imagination, a feel for context: these are not defects of judging but conditions of its justice. The cure for the selectivity of feeling is not to abolish feeling but to widen and discipline it—not the removal of emotion but its recognition and integration.
The task, then, is not to counterfeit the syllogism but to practice institutional honesty, and every reform worth proposing is, at bottom, a form of humility. Frank proposed many of them himself: greater self-awareness, an open admission that judges are “human beings with fallible minds,” even, literally, the abandonment of what he called “robe-ism” and a less ceremonious courtroom. The psychology of decision adds sharper instruments. A single session of metacognitive training can durably reduce susceptibility to bias, even if its transfer to the courtroom is more modest than the laboratory hopes; requiring a decider to justify a choice, with feedback, curbs overconfidence and anchoring; scheduling the hardest decisions for a rested mind, rather than for the depleted end of a docket, improves them. Separating the procedural roles—one judge on detention, another at trial, a third at sentencing—severs the loop of anchoring and confirmation; it is nemo iudex in causa sua, no one a judge in his own cause, applied to the judge’s own earlier self. Structured discretion narrows the field of subjectivity, though one must remember that guidelines can entrench a bias as readily as restrain it.
Collegiality is both rescue and trap. A panel can check an individual’s reactions, but only under psychological safety—the sense that one may voice a doubt without ridicule. Absent it, a cohesive group slides into groupthink and silences dissent, and the result can be worse than a single mind’s. Diversity on the bench is justified, then, not by symbolism but by the evidence that the composition of the court changes outcomes. And sometimes the crudest device is the most effective: stripping photographs and racial markers from the file so that the association is never triggered at all—a logic now written into California’s race-blind charging law, in force since 2025.
None of these reforms abolishes the human element, and none is meant to. Return, at the last, to Hutcheson. His confession was not an admission of defeat but the start of an honester jurisprudence. A judgment is, and will remain, a psychological act; the work of a legal order is not to pretend otherwise but to see that the psychology behind it is as aware, as self-critical, and as disciplined as a fallible human institution can make it. The robe that Frank would have us shed does not turn a judge into an oracle. At best it makes him accountable. And accountability begins exactly where the myth of the syllogism ends.
Robert Nogacki – licensed legal counsel (radca prawny, WA-9026), Founder of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec.
There are lawyers who practice law. And there are those who deal with problems for which the law has no ready answer. For over twenty years, Kancelaria Skarbiec has worked at the intersection of tax law, corporate structures, and the deeply human reluctance to give the state more than the state is owed. We advise entrepreneurs from over a dozen countries – from those on the Forbes list to those whose bank account was just seized by the tax authority and who do not know what to do tomorrow morning.
One of the most frequently cited experts on tax law in Polish media – he writes for Rzeczpospolita, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, and Parkiet not because it looks good on a résumé, but because certain things cannot be explained in a court filing and someone needs to say them out loud. Author of AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto: Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator. Co-author of the award-winning book Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy (Security of a Modern Company).
Kancelaria Skarbiec holds top positions in the tax law firm rankings of Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Four-time winner of the European Medal, recipient of the title International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.
He specializes in tax disputes with fiscal authorities, international tax planning, crypto-asset regulation, and asset protection. Since 2006, he has led the WGI case – one of the longest-running criminal proceedings in the history of the Polish financial market – because there are things you do not leave half-done, even if they take two decades. He believes the law is too serious to be treated only seriously – and that the best legal advice is the kind that ensures the client never has to stand before a court.
