Judicial opinions project an aura of inevitability, yet they often emerge from deeply indeterminate legal materials shaped by unconscious cognitive processes. Drawing on Ratzlaff v. United States, this report shows how coherence bias—operating through selective fact-filtering, evidentiary bolstering, and strategic rule selection—enables judges to craft competing yet internally coherent narratives, thereby expanding hidden discretion and complicating both rule-of-law and anti-corruption ideals.

For rule-of-law theory and anti-corruption scholarship, the analysis highlights how this hidden cognitive architecture expands de facto judicial discretion, obscures the role of ideological priors, and complicates conventional accounts of legal constraint and transparency. The report concludes by urging more psychologically realistic institutional and doctrinal responses, including greater epistemic humility in judicial writing and reforms that expose, rather than conceal, the contestable judgments that underwrite performances of certainty.

00:00 The Mystery of Legal Certainty

01:29 The Case of Ratzlaff v United States

02:44 Understanding Coherence Bias

04:01 The Mechanics of Decision-Making

05:41 Two Flawless Stories from One Case

06:44 The Psychology Behind Judicial Hunches

08:01 The Quest for Truth in Law