[GuiA]

Relevant link:

"We record the judges’ two daily food breaks, which result in segmenting the deliberations of the day into three distinct “decision sessions.” We find that the percentage of favorable rulings drops gradually from ≈65% to nearly zero within each decision session and returns abruptly to ≈65% after a break"

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889

[graeme]

Actually, this isn't as relevant as it seems. The parole judges in the study are given a steady stream of cases, without deliberation. There's also a clear default: "no"

Some court decisions fit that mold, but many do not. Often, court decisions have no default, and the judge retires to consider the arguments.

The study in question was very important for showing that humans are often not guided by rationality. But it's not necessarily a great demonstration of how all legal decisions are made.

[graeme]

Can't edit my comment. Meant to add something:

"But it's not necessarily a great demonstration of how all legal decisions are made."

Nor was it intended to be. I'm not suggesting the study was flawed.