Serious trial lawyers have long believed intuitively that appearances matter.  Despite the fact that they are immutable and irrelevant, some people just look guilty.   This has been backed up by numerous studies over the years, but a new study out of Cornell, that ugly people are 22% more likely to be convicted than attractive people, suggests that it depends on whether jurors are more emotional or rational.

According to a recent study by Justin J. Gunnell ’05 law ’08 and Prof. Stephen J. Ceci, human ecology and the Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology, more attractive defendants in court are less likely to be found guilty than less attractive ones. If there are damages, then more attractive people tend to receive higher rewards and in criminal cases, better-looking defendants receive lower sentences.

“We [already] knew about this phenomenon, so our question was: is there a specific type of person who’s more likely to do this?” Gunnell said.

In their report –– which will be published in the academic journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law and is titled “When Emotionality Trumps Reason” –– Gunnell and Ceci studied how individual information processing styles affect juror decisions.

The purpose of the study was to determine what characteristics made a juror more likely to be affected by an extraneous factor like attractiveness.  The study concluded:

“Information processing can proceed through two pathways, a rational one and an experiential one. The former is characterized by an emphasis on analysis, fact and logical argument, whereas the latter is characterized by emotional and personal experience,” the study said.

While this bit of information, and confirmation of our less than empirical beliefs, is good to have, its value is more as a novelty than substantive.  Regardless of the study, serious trial lawyers have always included the defendant’s appearance within the sphere of things to be addressed.  Ugly?  Make them look the best you can.  Tattoos? Cover them up.  Bad hair?  Get a really good cut.  Weird clothing?  Take them to Brooks Brothers or whatever clothier suits the need. 

The point is that no stone is left unturned, rather than we aiming for the cover of Elle.  To the extent that any oddness, weirdness, ugliness in appearance makes a person appear to be more guilty, or simply less innocent, we do what we have to do to eliminate the issue.  In one case, a defendant had particularly piercing eyes, a gaze so intense that it made people feel uncomfortable.  We had eyeglasses made with clear lenses (his vision was perfect) to soften his gaze and minimize the effect of his stare. 

As for the rational/emotional distinction, it’s neither easy nor reliable to expect to be capable of ascertaining on voir dire how any particular juror processes information.  We resort to gross generalizations based on answers to a few well directed questions, but as the study notes, the distinction is context sensitive.  Ask the wrong question to the wrong juror and end up with a wrong conclusion.  Hardly something to stake a person’s life on.

While there’s no doubt that the study reflects a very real concern, it’s ultimately of little consequence.  There’s never an excuse to neglect a defendant’s appearance at trial.  While it may not be possible to make a butt-ugly defendant appear beautiful, we can certainly do everything possible to make defendants appear their best.  To the extent it matters, we neutralize the ugliness and enhance the attractiveness.  To the extent that even rational jurors are subject to what the study calls the “unattractive harshness effect,” there’s simply no justification for ignoring it.

As much as we would like to believe that trials are rational creatures based on evidence alone, neglecting experiential reactions is just  foolish and unacceptable.  Leave no stone unturned, and that includes making the defendant look as innocent as possible.  If there’s going to be a conviction, let it not be because he looks guilty.

H/T Above the Law and Dan Solove.