Is the reptile "theory" akin to a four-leaf clover? Maybe a rabbit's foot?

Since co-authoring the article " Atticus Finch Would Not Approve: Why a Courtroom Full of Reptiles Is a Bad Idea " (The Jury Expert), I have blogged a few times on the reptile approach to a jury trial. In one post , I wondered if using the reptile scheme might sometimes bring a favorable verdict, not because of the efficacy of the scheme, but because the lawyer believed in the system and thus had more confidence.

The reptile has not been proven so the void of evidence invites musings about whether it ever works and, if so, why.

Is the system, for some trial lawyers, a lucky charm? Recent research indicates that talismans and certain behaviors can up believers' self-confidence. And, of course, a lawyer's self-confidence, not the reptile, can have a persuasive effect on a jury. From How Lucky charms really work (We're Only Human):

Most scientists dismiss superstitions as inconsequential fictions, the creations of irrational minds. Yet many people