Parties in a lawsuit may make what are known as “reptile theory” arguments during trial, which essentially are arguments that are designed to appeal to jurors’ emotions — particularly to their most basic instincts for survival and safety — to secure larger verdicts.
By stoking jurors’ fear of potential future harm and urging jurors to consider community safety instead of the merits of the case at hand, reptile theory arguments are often inflammatory and poignant. This can cause them to be unfairly prejudicial, with jurors even desiring to punish the defendant to protect themselves and the community at large.
Hence, if the prejudicial effect of a reptile theory argument outweighs its probative value, filing a reptile theory motion in limine to exclude the evidence is crucial in maintaining the integrity and fairness of the trial.
Reptile theory arguments are most often used in personal injury and product liability lawsuits, since the defendants in these types of lawsuits are prone to being portrayed as menaces to society.
As compelling as reptile theory arguments may be, they distract from the key issues of the case and sometimes even mislead jurors, causing them to react from emotion rather than according to the rules of the court.
