Last September, when my friend Brenda Heinicke interviewed me, I said that I wanted to focus on finding ways to better understand and communicate with each other, both as members of the legal profession and as members of society. Throughout the past year, I have tried to do that. I have eagerly relayed what I learned from David Eagleman's books about why we all see, feel and experience something different when we encounter the same objective event or circumstance. With no ability to interact directly with the outside world (or even with the rest of the body), and trapped inside a dark and (hopefully) windowless skull, our brains must constantly build and modify replicas of our surroundings. Throughout our lives we assign meaning to certain patterns in the electrochemical signals endlessly streaming in from our data receptors, and our brains incorporate these assigned-meanings into the blueprints used to construct our interpretations of reality.

The knowledge I have gained over the past three years, about how our brains create our realities, has changed my life and my opinions about people. I finally understand why we all think, believe and interpret everything so very differently from one another. These differences affect every aspect of our lives, and hamper our ability to communicate effectively with each other. Because I do not feel like an extraordinarily-late-bloomer with regard to these topics, I would venture to say that a lot of people incorrectly believe that each of us "sees" the same world out there when we look through our respective peepers. We quickly become judgmental, suspicious, and angry when the "objective" aspects of our "reality" are contradicted or questioned by others. We often conclude that those disagreeing with us about the "facts" are simply disingenuous. We do not understand that science is most likely the culprit behind the discrepancies. If the Kardashians were neuroscientists we would all know about internal models and prediction errors based on stereotypes and prior experiences. We would expect discrepancies in perception and understand why these baseline discrepancies grow exponentially in a million different directions, and create just as many unique perspectives. It looks like we will have to get the message out ourselves.

I have written about a few of the ways that our different perceptions and perspectives impact the judicial system in general, and criminal defendants more specifically. I have written about the judicial system, in part, because I have some familiarity with it, but also because it seems to be the only remaining pillar of our democracy which continues to bear any weight. We no longer seem to be a nation which even pretends to be bound by common principles, but rather one bound only by our common, yet fragile, agreement to abide by the decisions handed-down through our judicial system. If large portions of our population ever finally conclude that the inherent inequities in the judicial system cannot or will not be remedied, then we could be headed back to where we started.

Prudence, indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when . . . .

In an effort to be part of some type of solution, I have a proposal to share with you. In full disclosure, my proposal has been unanimously deemed impossible by several trusted colleagues immensely knowledgeable about what the state and federal Constitutions might allow. Nevertheless, I will take this opportunity to make my pitch.

I think it is unfortunate that any widespread opportunity to participate in structured education in our country ends at the age of eighteen, despite near-universal acknowledgment that the human brain is not fully-developed until the age of twenty-five. Furthermore, our system of education does not seem all that efficient for the five-to-eighteen-year-old crowd passing through it every year. I am certainly not throwing shade on educators who dedicate their careers to teaching our children. My credentials as a pseudo-neuroscientist do not extend to educational reform. I am only suggesting that it would be beneficial to create opportunities for citizens to receive regular educational "updates" throughout their lives. We are accustomed to accepting, and expecting, regular and necessary updates to our phone apps. We should offer, and readily accept, regular "updates" to our individual bodies of knowledge. We should provide adults within our society with periodic opportunities to catch-up on the science regarding how our brains work and why each of us creates realities that are necessarily very different. It would be life-changing to talk to people about memories and cognitive biases and the fact that our brains require a moment to determine what is actually happening out there in the world. In those moments before our predictive models are reconciled with the actual data streaming in from the senses, we are all seeing, hearing, feeling and experiencing something different from each other, and different from what is actually occurring.

I propose that we try to reach people by utilizing the jury system. We could give every eligible juror the option of joining the "Informed Jury Pool" or remaining part of the existing jury pool. If a person makes no decision, they would remain in the existing jury pool. Therefore, membership in the Informed Jury Pool would be entirely voluntary. Members of the Informed Jury Pool would be required to participate, once every five years, in informational sessions and discussions about: (1) how our brains work; (2) cognitive biases; (3) how memory works; (4) the framework of a trial; (5) how sentences are determined; and (6) the practical advantages of diverse vantage points when making decisions. We routinely ask juries to make difficult credibility determinations and to decide which of the disputed facts are "true." The educational updates provided to the Informed Jury Pool would give jurors the informational tools and resources needed to make these decisions.

Any member of the Informed Jury Pool who becomes involved in a court action and needs a jury would be entitled to a jury selected from the Informed Jury Pool. Those who are not members of the Informed Jury Pool would be provided potential jurors from the existing jury pool. During the selection of a jury from the Informed Jury Pool no peremptory strikes would be allowed, and Informed Juries would be informed about the ramifications of a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. We could pay for the Informed Jury Pool updates from amounts which would otherwise be refunded under TABOR.

Clearly, there are details to be worked out, and inevitable court challenges to overcome, however, the opportunity to talk to adults of all ages, directly and not via cable news, about these topics in the context of a civic obligation such as jury duty would be ENORMOUSLY valuable - to the judicial system and society in general. We could improve the quality of judicial outcomes and the effectiveness and civility of interactions outside the courtroom.

This is my last President's Message. It has been an immense privilege. Thank you. I will look for you in the Informed Jury Pool!