The Litigation Psychology Podcast

Paul Motz, Shareholder and Trial Attorney, at Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to dispel several myths around litigation and talk about what's fact and what's fiction. Paul and Bill discuss whether jurors hate corporations, whether the person most knowledgeable should always serve as the corporate representative, whether someone who has been deposed many times before is a good witness for subsequent depositions, whether witnesses can win the case at deposition, whether witnesses are more vulnerable during a Zoom deposition, when to prep witnesses for trial, whether the former employee is always a horrible witness, whether mock trials are superior to focus groups, and whether witnesses with tattoos or piercings have credibility issues with jurors.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. joins host Ava Hernandez to discuss his background and how he got into the litigation consulting business. Steve shares details on his education and his interest in how people make decisions which he applies to his role as a litigation consultant. Ava and Steve also talk about their fascination with how people behave and in particular how people's perspectives are influenced by their interactions with others especially within the context of the litigation process. Steve discusses the changes he has seen in litigation since he started as a litigation consultant and the aspects of litigation research that he finds the most fascinating. Lastly, Ava and Steve discuss the importance of humanity in the approach to litigation, even in an adversarial business. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/KgM

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about how to manage stress during trial. Bill shares the three areas to focus on: physical health, emotional health, and mental health. 

Physical health keys: 
1. Protect your sleep - really important to get plenty of restful sleep. 
2. Exercise - get your body moving, even if its just for a few minutes by taking a walk or a short run. 
3. Eat right - you have to eat well and eat right; ignoring your diet is a recipe for poor performance. 

Emotional health: To preserve your emotional health, focus on making a self health plan. Carve out time for your family, every day during the trial.  

Mental health keys: Maintain positive thinking patterns. Avoid negativity and second-guessing. Control your emotions and avoid amygdala hijack.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/UvM

Nationally recognized and renowned memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. for the second part of their discussion about memory, where they talk about repressed memories. Dr. Loftus shares her experience working on cases where repressed memories were at the core of the case and the research she has done on repressed memories and false memories. Steve and Elizabeth discuss the ways in which she has been challenged and attacked for her research and the work she has done around repressed memories. Lastly, they talk about how Dr. Loftus acts as an investigator on the cases she works on.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. answers another round of podcast listener mail:

- What is the best timing for witness training?
- What is the best routine for the witness the morning of the deposition? 
- How do you deal with catastrophic injury and death cases every week?
- How long should focus groups be?
- Any updates on nuclear verdicts and how to prevent them?

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/yn6

Nationally recognized and renowned memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. for the first part of a two-part episode about memory. Dr. Loftus is a Distinguished Professor at University of California-Irvine and has consulted on the issue of memory for hundreds of civil and criminal cases throughout her career. Dr. Loftus shares her background on how she got into the study of memory and eyewitness memory, in particular. Dr. Loftus describes the three major stages of eyewitness memory, the malleable nature of memory, and gives examples of research studies that she has been involved with, including research on suggestions, leading questions, and semantics. Steve and Beth talk about the impact of stress on memory, the misconceptions about memory, and the types of cases that Dr. Loftus has been involved with where memory is one of the core issues, including the Martha Stewart insider trading case. Lastly, Steve and Elizabeth talk about misinformation, memory contamination, and the "I don't remember" and "I don't recall" responses of witnesses at deposition.

John E. Hall, Jr., Partner with Hall, Booth, Smith, P.C. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the trial process. Bill and John discuss preparation for trial, managing stress leading up to trial, as well as, managing stresses during trial. John shares the strategic approach his team employs to prepare for trial and how he works with his trial team. John and Bill talk about how to stay focused on trial matters while there may be conversations taking place about settlement, as well as, how to deal with opinions and ideas from other stakeholders such as insurance carriers, reinsurance, excess, etc. They talk about how to handle judges that may not be favorable toward the defense, the importance of strategic objections, and managing clients at trial. Lastly, Bill and John discuss the differences between the plaintiffs bar and defense bar with regards to collaboration, the structural issues that encourage the sharing on the plaintiffs side and limit it on the defense side, and solutions to providing younger attorneys with more opportunities to learn and become better trial attorneys. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/sV8

Legal Sector Analyst and Forecaster Jordan Furlong joins host Ava Hernandez to discuss a range of topics around the future of legal including shifts in market expectations, the development of early career lawyers, and changes in the business of law. Jordan and Ava talk about how law firms must reconsider and reimagine their approach to their purpose. Jordan highlights  how the development program for new associates needs to change, in particular due to the impact AI and other technologies are having on lower-level legal work. They discuss generational divides in law firms and how successful firms are managing the mix of generations in their firms. Ava and Jordan also speak about the expectations of clients today, how difficult it is for firms to adapt to these changing client requests, and the lack of trust on both the law firm side and the client side when considering changes. Lastly, Jordan and Ava talk about how millennials can position themselves to be the type of lawyer they want to be. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Rk1

As a follow-up to Part 1 (Episode #220) of what not to do in opening statements, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about what to do in your opening statements. Bill discusses a few key principles for delivering opening statements: the speed of delivery, eye contact, repetition, pausing/using silence, movement, volume, and telling the jurors what you want. Bill talks about primacy and recency effects and leveraging them in the delivery of an opening statement and also defines and describes the cognitive lens and how it should be used to frame your case. Bill breaks down why a shorter opening statement is critical and how much time should be spent on each element of the opening. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/WOQ

Michael “Mick” Williams, Ph.D., Founding Member of The Science of P/CVE & Shawn C. Marsh, Ph.D., Director of Judicial Studies and Associate Professor of Communication Studies / Social Psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno join Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss the concept of Terror Management Theory and its implications on civil litigation. Mick and Shawn define what Terror Management Theory is, how Terror Management Theory relates to the Reptile Theory and Edge Theory, and what the evidence and implications are for juror decision making related to concepts of mortality. The group also discuss some of the research and subtle ways in which jurors can be influenced to drive specific perceptions and decisions. Shawn describes how stress, environmental factors, humanizing defendants and corporations, and other worldviews also can be used to influence jurors. Mick, Shawn, and Steve discuss the role of self-esteem and anger in the litigation process and lastly talk about implicit bias and what role it plays on jurors, attorneys, and judges. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/fWm

In the first of a two-part episode, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about opening statements and what not to do in your opening statement. First, Bill explains the primary reasons why opening statements fail: 

1) Attorneys don't get formal training on how to construct an opening statement;
2) Attorneys don't have an understanding of how the juror brain processes information;
3) The games our minds play on us;
4) Many attorneys have less experience and opportunity to do opening statements because fewer cases go to trial. 

Bill shares what not to do in your opening statement:
- Do not introduce yourself to the jury; 
- Don't thank the jury for their civic duty;
- Don't start your opening with a corny story or a joke; 
- Don't discuss the role of the jurors;  
- Don't go on too long;  
- Don't read your opening statement from a legal pad or a tablet;  
- Don't go on the defensive.

In part 2, Bill will discuss what you should do in your opening statement. 

Attorney Chris Turney of Turney LG joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss inflated settlements and verdicts. Chris describes what he believes are the factors that are influencing and effecting outsized settlements and verdicts and walks through a 4 quadrant concept to help explain what is happening. Chris defines what he refers to as direct actions, indirect actions, intentional actions, and unintentional actions and provides examples and details for each quadrant. Chris and Bill discuss verdict shaming, spike evaluations, storytelling, generating interest for the jury, and how to talk to clients about investing in weaponry. Lastly, Bill and Chris talk about preparing and training witnesses for deposition, particularly witnesses who are wrestling with stresses that are outside the litigation. Chris emphasizes the importance of getting down into the trenches with your witnesses and really understanding their perspective and challenges, plus how to deal with personal questions at deposition. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/7w6

Ava Hernandez, M.A. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D to talk about her background and how she got started in the litigation consulting field. Ava shares how she spent the early part of her career working in law firms, including both plaintiff and defense firms, then got interested in psychology, went back to earn her Masters in Clinical Psychology, and then ended up at Courtroom Sciences as a Litigation Consultant. Ava talks about what type of cases she enjoys working on and why the application of psychology in litigation is so interesting to her. She shares how important it is for her to help people and her fascination with understanding why people think the way they do and believe so strongly in what they believe in. Ava and Steve talk about how they manage feedback from jurors that may seem nonsensical since those thoughts and comments do make sense to the person sharing their perspective. Lastly, Ava shares how her experience working with plaintiff attorneys gives her an advantage when working on the defense side. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/dEs

Holly Howanitz, Managing Partner, Tyson & Mendes joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about cross-examination of expert witnesses. Holly highlights that you need think about your goals when cross-examining expert witnesses especially since experts often have more experience testifying than a fact witness. Bill and Holly talk about strategic decisions such as when to bring up "bombs" for the expert either at deposition or at trial and how to approach preparing for cross-examining an expert. Holly shares how she prepares for an arrogant expert or an expert that does primarily work for the plaintiff's side. Bill and Holly also talk about preparing experts for the defense and what that process is like. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/fO6

Kent Doll, Trial Attorney & Owner, KND Law joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to share his litigation philosophy, Bill and Kent discuss the difference between a trial attorney and a litigator. They discuss trial technology and Kent's approach to jury selection and how important it is to get jurors to open up and share so you can understand their biases and perspectives. Bill and Kent talk about opening statements and closings and Kent shares the advice he would give to attorneys in the early part of their career and thoughts on managing mental health in a highly stressful job.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/CMp

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. conclude our med mal litigation series by talking about trial preparation for medical malpractice cases. Steve and Bill discuss important tips about managing and preparing witnesses for trial testimony, working with witnesses as early as possible before trial, and helping them understand the difference between direct and cross examination and what to know if they are called adversely. They emphasize how important it is for witnesses to be completely familiar with their deposition testimony and to keep their responses to questions short so that jurors can follow along. Bill and Steve also talk about voir dire and misperceptions about what types of people make "good" jurors or "bad jurors" and how demographics or occupations are poor predictors of juror perspectives. Lastly, they discuss opening statements in med mal cases and how and why to leverage the cognitive lens in your opening statement.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. talks about preparing witnesses for trial testimony. Steve mentions several key tips including teaching witnesses to take their time when responding both during direct examination and cross-examination. It is important for witnesses to be consistent with how much time they are taking to answer both direct and cross questions so jurors don't perceive any discrepancy. Taking time in answering also helps jurors who are hearing the information for the first time and need time to process the questions and responses. Steve also highlights the need for witnesses to have short, concise answers. Long, wordy responses will be difficult for the jury to follow. Witnesses need to look at the jury when giving their answers but must do it in a way that is comfortable both for them and for the jurors. Steve stresses how critical it is to prepare witnesses for any documents they will be shown at trial. They need to be given time to review documents they may be shown and should re-read their deposition testimony as well. Lastly, Steve talks about some misperceptions about jury selection and specific types of jurors. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/zSB

Dr. Jordan Romano joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss expert witness testimony in medical malpractice cases. Dr. Romano has served as an expert witness on numerous medical malpractice cases and talks about how he got started as an expert witness, how he got up to speed on the litigation process, and what he does as a hospitalist. Bill asks Dr. Romano about the differences between working as an expert for the plaintiff's side and the defense side and what advice he would give attorneys on what they can do better when working with experts. Dr. Romano also addresses the questions that he gets at deposition or trial about his compensation to serve as an expert witness. Lastly, Dr. Romano shares how he manages his testimony at trial when in teaching mode and when being attacked by opposing counsel. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/emk

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. join host Ava Hernandez to talk about what they have been seeing in the cases they have been working on recently. Steve shares that he's been seeing more jurors who are expecting fact witnesses to remember all details from the incident and talks about how to address this issue. The group discuss the pros and cons of the legal strategy of withholding documents from witnesses or not showing witnesses videos or other documents prior to their deposition, in particular corporate reps. Bill shares an insight he recently heard from a successful plaintiff attorney: cases are win or lost in the first or second deposition. Steve, Bill, and Ava talk about how many witnesses get so upset about personal questions asked at deposition and how it needs to be handled. They also share a positive trend they have been seeing of more attorneys and clients doing early assessments on their cases, sometimes even before a suit is filed or before depositions have been scheduled. Lastly, they talk about seeing some encouraging signs of sharing and collaboration on the defense side and more of a focus on the mental health of witnesses. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OID

Medical malpractice defense attorney Michael Denning of Heyl Royster joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the timeline of litigation in medical malpractice. First, Michael and Bill touch on the mental stress of being named in a lawsuit and the importance of making sure the physician or named defendant is doing okay and checking in on their mental health. They discuss the process of building trust with the defendant and issues that arise around finger pointing and defendants who are worried about their reputation if word gets out that they are being sued. Michael and Bill talk about preparing for deposition and how defendants are so often misinformed about what the purpose of their testimony is and how their deposition really needs to be prepared for and handled. They also discuss the challenge of working with foreign-born witnesses and how all witnesses must embrace their conduct and decisions. Lastly, Mike and Bill talk about the trial phase of litigation, the direction that needs to be given to defendants about what to expect at trial, and why they are a focal point for the jury even when they are not on the witness stand. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/F8L

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. joins host Ava Hernandez to discuss his background and how he got into the litigation consulting industry. Ava and Bill talk about how their backgrounds in clinical psychology allow them to assess and prepare witnesses in a way that attorneys are not trained to. They also discuss the ethical challenges with the tension that can occur in working with witnesses, the emotional and mental issues that a witness may be dealing with and addressing their psychological wellness prior to witness prep. Lastly, Ava and Bill offer their insights on what they see in the future around litigation. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/PrO

Chuck Ingram, Partner with Estes, Ingram, Foels & Gibbs, P.A., joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the discovery stage of medical malpractice litigation. Chuck discusses the importance being proactive during the discovery phase in med mal cases and how he approaches discovery differently based on which plaintiff firm has filed the suit. Bill and Chuck also talk about developing younger attorneys, managing co-defendants, strategies for admitting liability, the value of jury research, over-reliance on expert witnesses, and dealing with emotional nurse witnesses. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Pgv

Shane O'Dell, Member, Naman, Howell, Smith, and Lee & Mike Bassett, Trial Attorney, The Bassett Firm, join Steve Wood, Ph.D. to talk about some of the misperceptions of the defense bar. The group discuss what the Reptile Theory is really all about and that the purpose of the Reptile Theory is less about scaring the jury and more about empowering them. 

Mike, Shane, and Steve discuss the evolution of Reptile to The Edge and what is different about The Edge from Reptile Theory, as well as what they are seeing as best practices from strong plaintiff attorneys. The group also talk about the importance of establishing a relationship with your defense witnesses, how best to approach opening statements, and the value in testing with focus groups and mock trials. Lastly, they discuss counter-anchoring, how to approach providing an alternate damage figure for the jury, admitting liability, and humanizing the corporate defendant. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/p97

Kristi Harrington, Certified Mediator and Arbitrator with Kristi Harrington Dispute Resolution, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss mediation and alternative dispute resolution in medical malpractice cases. Kristi shares her background and the help she offers clients with alternative dispute resolution and mediation. They talk about issues they encounter in medical malpractice cases and ways to get the most favorable and reasonable outcomes in mediation.

Kristi and Bill also cover what to look for when hiring a mediator including someone who understands the medical field, someone who can be empathetic to both parties, and someone who is committed to the process to ensure there is an acceptable resolution for all parties. Bill and Kristi discuss the criticality of early assessment of cases with data from mock jurors to help with case preparation and not simply using prior verdicts or similar cases in that jurisdiction. Lastly, they talk about the importance of having a good presentation for the mediator and helping the mediator understand the nuances of your case which aids them in doing their job.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/R5S

Leah Miller, Fractional CFO, LNM Financial Services LLC joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about law firm finances. Leah and Bill define key financial terms such as revenue, expenses, profitability, and talk about the complexities that crop up as a firm grows. Leah shares the guidance she gives her clients on how often they should be looking at their numbers and describes what a Fractional CFO does and how it differs from a CPA or bookkeeper. Leah and Bill also discuss setting goals, managing cash flow, and what lawyers and law firms need to watch out for in their spending. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oAw 

In part 4 of our medical malpractice litigation series, Ava Hernandez joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss preparing mid to higher-trained nurses for deposition testimony. BSNs, MSNs, Nurse Practioners, Nurse Managers, Charge Nurses, and similar nurses have significant responsibilities and often come into their deposition with a different perspective than an LPN or less-experienced nurse might and therefore must be prepared and handled differently during deposition prep. Ava and Bill discuss how sometimes these nurses have to contend with blame that may come from the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's family, from physicians, or even from other nurses and that some nurses may react with guilt, shame, and anxiety to the adverse patient outcome and the litigation itself. Ava and Bill talk about how critical it is for attorneys to understand the emotional burden these nurses are carrying when working with them in deposition prep and take into account the human aspect of what is going on with the witness. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Epa

Will Stute, Partner at Orrick, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss the work he did on Gee v NCAA in which he won a defense verdict. Will provides some personal background and ways he has honed his craft and then relates his experience with defending mass tort cases. He gives an overview of the strategy behind this bellwether case (Gee v NCAA) he worked on, plus his insights on leveraging jury research for his cases and his approach to jury selection. Will and Steve talk about how best to leverage objections, the feedback that jurors in this case provided after their verdict, and also the media coverage and cameras in the courtroom for this trial. Lastly, Will and Steve discuss the importance and process of preparing witnesses for testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/5fR

Jeff Willis, MD, Owner/Physician Consultant of On-Call MedLegal Consulting joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about consulting for medical malpractice attorneys. Dr. Willis specializes in pre-litigation and pre-trial services, working as a member of the legal team from intake through resolution. Dr. Willis provides case merit analysis, precision medical expert matching, case strategy development, and deposition preparation. Jeff and Bill discuss expert witnesses, the differences between a D.O and M.D., legal nurse consultants, and the differences between plaintiff attorneys and defense attorneys in how they manage medical malpractice cases, Lastly, Jeff and Bill share their fears and concerns about healthcare in the future. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/3tG

Trial Attorney Cody Gomora from The Wolf Law Firm, P.C. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss how younger attorneys can navigate their role as civil litigation defense attorneys. Cody shares how his experience in the district attorney's office and trying criminal cases gave him invaluable courtroom experience that he now applies in his civil litigation defense work. Bill and Cody also discuss generational differences between attorneys, between attorneys and jurors, and talk about the impact and influence of social media in litigation. Lastly, Bill and Cody discuss the importance of mentorship for younger attorneys. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/7Sv

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the role and impact of expert witnesses in medical malpractice litigation. Bill shares that typically expert witness testimony doesn't get you very far in med mal cases in terms of juror decision-making. This is due to the fact that the expert witness is unable to directly evaluate the patient unlike expert witnesses who can, for example, evaluate defective parts in a product liability case. Expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases can help with case evaluation and help with preparing the case, but their testimony does not influence juror decision-making. One area where an expert witness can make an impact is with the visual presentation of the case and their ability to teach. The most important influence over juror decision-making will be the testimony and performance of the fact witnesses in your case.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. commemorate the 200th episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast and discuss the misunderstanding many have about the correlation between juror anger and outsized verdicts. Steve and Bill share the scientific data that Courtroom Sciences has collected and analyzed to understand the role that juror anger does or does not play in nuclear verdicts. Steve and Bill explain the process of collecting the data and how the results show that although juror anger is a factor in large damage awards, it is a small percentage when compared to other factors. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/GSV

In the first part of a series of episodes about medical malpractice litigation, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about nurses sitting for deposition, in particular, the LPN, and the importance of the initial meeting and communication with these nurses. These lower-level nurses often struggle at deposition due to their nervousness about the process, fear of the ramifications, potential blame issues, etc. It's critical to meet with these nurses as soon as possible, checking in with them, seeing how they are doing, and demonstrating that you care about them as a person. Bill discusses how crucial the initial assessment of their mental, physical, and emotional state is before any prep for the deposition starts. Also, it is important to ask them difficult questions about their job, including whether there have been issues at work previously, whether they blame anyone else for the incident at the heart of the case, and their specifics memories of what took place. Lastly, Bill talks about getting their commitment to work with you to prepare for their deposition. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/c3S

Steve Wood, Ph.D. is joined by Sean Murphy, Practice Leader of CSI Critical Communications & Brent Turman, Partner with Bell Nunnally to talk about social media in the courtroom. Sean begins by talking about cameras in the courtroom and gives the example of the narrative around Donald Trump's upcoming trials and his team's request for allowing cameras in the courtroom. Brent shares how important public opinion can be in some trials and how that may influence the wording in different motions that the trial teams may file, even if that language may not be legally necessary but instead may be influential for the narrative in the traditional media and social media. The group offer their perspectives on the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial and how their legal teams did and did not leverage social media to influence the court of public opinion, as well as, how documentaries about different trials have an impact on the reputation of the litigants involved. Lastly, Steve, Sean, and Brent discuss other social media and public perception considerations that should be factored in when managing litigation. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/XDk

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. is joined by Brendan Dawson, Founder of Accident Plan, to talk about how the Accident Plan software helps guide truck drivers to manage and secure an accident scene when an incident occurs and capture the critical data to be shared with others offsite. Brendan shares how the training for truck drivers using Accident Plan allows them to be more prepared and follow a process and checklist when dealing with an accident. Bill and Brendan talk about the return on investment on being proactive and getting stakeholders informed quickly and early so that claims can be handled effectively and at the lowest possible cost in terms of money and time. Brendan also discusses the work he does in private investigation for both the defense and plaintiff side. Brendan offers his advice to defendants to investigate yourself; to know your own weaknesses and shortcomings before opposing counsel does it for you. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/zVu

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. kick off 2024 with another episode answering podcast listener mail. Questions addressed:

-  How can I deal with anchoring by plaintiff's counsel?
-  Is it okay if my witness wears a nose ring to her video deposition?
-  How can I deal with an ex-employee who is not willing to cooperate in their deposition prep?
-  Does it sound bad for a witness to respond to a question with "I don't know"?
-  Is it better for a female attorney to cross-examine an adverse female witness?
-  Should I use the Reptile book during my closing argument to help jurors recognize what the Reptile attorney is doing?
-  What are things that the defense team can do that really bother the plaintiff's team?

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talk about the impacts of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) on witnesses in litigation. PTSD can occur in several different types of litigation and isn't exclusively just in cases involving vehicle accidents or bad medical outcomes. Steve and Bill provide a checklist for defense attorneys on what to look for when working with witnesses to identify potential PTSD issues that may require additional time, assessment, or even treatment. 

Some signs to look for and/or questions to ask: 
- intrusive memories and thoughts; 
- negative changes in thinking and mood; 
- ask about their relationships and their support network; 
- assess their reactions and attitude; 
- how's your sleep quality?; 
- are you self-medicating/drinking?; 
- are you experiencing or dealing with physical pain?

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/sRl

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about how to manage the teaching moment during trial testimony. When your expert witness or defendant is put on the stand with the goal of teaching the jurors something, your witness must meet the jury where they are. It's important to remember the concept of juror cognitive lag, which is that jurors will lag behind in their cognition and your witness has to understand that the jurors are not going to be able to follow along easily. So, the witness has to make adjustments to their teaching methodology and you and your witness have to practice the teaching process, perhaps up to 5-10 times. 

Common mistakes that are made during the teaching moment of trial: 

- Going too fast - have to remember that the jury can't ask questions or ask the witness to slow down. 
- Visuals are not juror friendly - exhibits and demonstratives need to be easy for jurors to understand and follow; it's important to test the visuals before using them at trial. 
- Talking above the juror's heads - have to define any terms that the witness is using that might be uncommon or unfamiliar to the jurors and use examples or analogies to help the jurors understand the concept the witness is trying to teach or explain.

Bryan Aghakhani, Partner, Bordin Semmer joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the attorney perspective on the deposition. Bryan states that cases are won or lost at deposition and that the preparation before deposition, and being actively engaged at deposition with objections, is key for defense attorneys when defending depositions. Bryan and Bill discuss the difference in preparing a fact witness and a corporate representative 30(b)(6) for deposition and also talk about the strategy and approach for taking a plaintiff's deposition. Bryan shares his thoughts on taking the deposition of the plaintiff's expert and the philosophy around hiring an expert for the defense. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/HvF

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talk about the misperception that humanizing the corporation is valuable and relevant to jurors. Often, defense counsel and the companies they represent want to talk at trial about how their company is made up of individuals just like the jurors, how much the company gives in charity, how many volunteering activities they do, and more. Steve and Bill debunk the assumption that time spent humanizing the company will make jurors more sympathetic toward the company. Talking  about all of the things the company does that "humanizes" them is a waste of valuable time and doesn't resonate with jurors. Rather, the way that the corporate rep for the company presents at deposition and trial is much more important than focusing on the humanizing the company. The person representing the company needs to be authentic, caring, compassionate, etc. and this will be much more meaningful and impactful with jurors than a company "commercial" that tries to humanize the company.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/40U

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the science behind how depositions begin. Most opposing counsel start off being friendly and nice and asking very simple, non-threatening questions at the beginning of the deposition to get the witness's guard down. The witness's brain gets comfortable with these easy questions which allows opposing counsel to take advantage of their comfort with later questions that are case specific and include bad facts and other difficult topics. The whole goal for plaintiff attorneys is to disarm the witness and turn the dynamic into a conversational situation to get the answers they are looking for. Witnesses need to be taught that these initial questions are a trap and must be taken as seriously as the more challenging case specific questions that will come later in order to establish the proper cognition for all questions. All types of questions that opposing counsel will ask should be practiced. 

Dr. Mark Manera, Founder and CEO of Supply Chain Fitness, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about fitness in trucking and transportation. Mark is a physical therapist and founded his company after identifying the level of unhealthiness in the trucking industry. Bill and Mark discuss the challenges with helping transportation companies understand the value and return on investment in health and physical fitness programs and how Mark has been addressing some of the objections to costs for these types of programs. Mark describes the programs his company offers including exercise, nutrition, and coaching and how he works to make things simple and accommodating for drivers such as exercises that can be done outside the truck, inside the truck, etc. He also provides nutritional guidance and healthy options for eating while on the road. Lastly, Bill and Mark talk about the impact of small changes, sleep hygiene, and the importance of rest. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/9kK

Ava Hernandez joins Steve Wood, Ph.D & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss competing priorities at deposition prep. The client, attorney, and witness are all involved at different levels in the deposition prep though sometimes the goals for each aren't aligned and may be in conflict with one another. The group discusses the witness's perspective and how their brain is wired to survive which, if not properly trained, may lead to answering questions in a non-ideal way. The attorney may be focused on defending their client and may not fully understand how a witness should be prepared in order for them to deliver their best performance. And the client might also be advocating for defending themselves and not aware of what the purpose of the deposition is (hint: its not to win the case) which is to get to the other side of the deposition without making things worse. 

To address these competing priorities, it's important to get alignment on the objectives before any deposition prep starts and to invest the time with the witness to evaluate, assess, and address any emotional issues or concerns that the witness may have to ensure they can be successful with the training and prep. The witness's needs and perspective must be front and center and attorneys and clients should treat them as an integral part of the process so they understand their role and why the legal team is asking them to do what they are asking for. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/b6a

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the importance of effective listening skills by the witness during testimony. Listening is a skill that must be taught by a neurocognitive expert because the brain is not wired naturally to listen, particularly to the degree required during questioning. Bill dispels the myth that witnesses should engage in active listening during their testimony. Active listening is a communication tactic whereby the listener is analyzing the gestures, body language, tone of voice, posture, etc. of the speaker to understand their point and then when responding, adjusting the listener's own body language, tone, gestures, etc. to acknowledge you understood what the speaker was saying. The skill of active listening is not meant for an adversarial situation like a deposition or trial. 

When preparing a witness for testimony, you want your witness to practice passive, focused listening and not spending energy on trying to interpret opposing counsel's body language, tone, and posture as these can be a trap for your witness. In an adversarial environment like testimony, active listening will actually hurt the witness as the opposing counsel is often trying to manipulate the witness. The purpose of active listening is to send non-verbal signals to the speaker to acknowledge that you are hearing and understanding what they are saying. This is not relevant or appropriate during testimony.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discuss part 2 of the operant conditioning topic and how opposing counsel uses operant conditioning to derail witnesses during both deposition and trial testimony. Operant conditioning is the creation of an association between a behavior and the outcome and can include positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment. It's important to understand that negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment; negative reinforcement is the elimination of a negative stimulus, not punishment. 

Witnesses need to educated on how the questioner could use operant conditioning during their questioning, including rewarding answers that opposing counsel likes and delivering negative reinforcement for answers they don't like. This is challenging for an untrained witness's brain to decipher and manage. Bill and Steve discuss how powerful negative reinforcement is and also how positive reinforcement is used to manipulate the witness. Lastly, they discuss the topic of punishment and how opposing counsel can use punishment with witnesses to achieve their objectives. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Lml

Brenda Smith, Attorney with Dvorak Law Group, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr. Ph.D. to discuss the importance of conducting an early, thorough assessment of witnesses before beginning deposition prep and to make a connection with witnesses before even starting prep. This early assessment allows the litigation team to address any issues in advance of deposition prep so the preparation can be more impactful and deliver positive outcomes. 

Brenda and Bill talk about working with witnesses who may be suffering from emotional issues and/or physical injuries from the accident. Brenda shares her approach for witness preparation, including starting the preparation very early, and checking in regularly with the witness to build rapport and see how they are doing with any physical or emotional  issues they may be dealing with. Brenda and Bill discuss how these check-ins are critical to building a connection with the witness, allowing them an opportunity to vent, and continually reassuring the witness that the litigation team is there to help and will be with them throughout the litigation process. 

Brenda and Bill give specifics on a recent case they worked on with an emotional and injured driver. The driver was being triggered by the video evidence and was having difficulty with acknowledging his culpability in the accident after viewing the video. They also talk about how important the support of the trucking company was in helping the driver in this difficult situation and how the owner of the trucking company even met with the driver face-to-face to express the company's support and assistance for the driver. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/xft

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the biggest mistake defense attorneys are making at deposition, which is the erroneous assumption that the beginning of the deposition, when plaintiff's counsel is questioning the witness on background information, is not important. The witness (and the attorney) need to understand that those background questions are part of the setup for the plaintiff attorney and are critical for establishing good habits in responses from the witness that will need to be applied during the rest of the deposition. When witnesses get too comfortable with answering background questions, which are not perceived as threatening to the witness, they put themselves at a higher degree of risk to slip up when the questions become more difficult. Defense attorneys need to take the background questions seriously and practice them with their witnesses so they don't fall for the trap being setup during the background questions. It is imperative that defense counsel work with witnesses to establish proper habits in answering questions right from the outset of the deposition.

Dr. Jonathan Glenn, Director of Diversity and Inclusion at Alma College, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss mentorship. Jonathan talks about the power of mentorship and describes both formal and informal mentorship and how they differ. Jonathan shares how great mentors are able to see things within others that they can't see within themselves. Strong mentors challenge "safe dreams" and push others to dream even bigger. Jonathan describes some of the challenges with getting mentorship from potential mentors who are intimidated by confident, talented mentees and the importance of identifying mentors who want success for their proteges and are supportive of their needs and goals. Lastly, Jonathan describes the four key elements of successful mentorship: consistency, commitment, passion, and communication. Dr. Glenn's TedX talk can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2faGK8uRsI Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/PE7 

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares the issues with a witness he is training for trial testimony and the witness's problem with pivoting, which he did extensively in his deposition. This witness's deposition included responses that went on way too long, responses that came way too quickly, including speaking over the questioner, and most of his responses to questions about facts were pivoting responses like "Yes, but....". Witnesses must accept facts - facts are facts. Bill describes how he will be approaching the training for this witness based on what he observed in his deposition testimony in order to fix the mistakes that were made so they aren't repeated during his trial testimony.

Fred I. Lederer, Director of the Center for Legal & Court Technology (CLCT) and Daniel Shin, Cybersecurity Researcher for CLCT join Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss the topic of deepfakes in litigation. Fred and Daniel provide the background and history of CLCT and how the center has expanded its focus to new and emerging technologies including machine learning and AI. Daniel defines what a deepfake is, how deepfake technology is being used and applied, and the group discuss the implications of deepfakes on litigation. Fred brings up the impact on admissibility of evidence as well as the larger concern of the triers of fact not believing whether any digital, video, photographic, or physical evidence is real. Daniel shares how some companies have been creating technology to authenticate digital content to aid in dealing with deepfakes, though this technology is still in its infancy at this time so education on what is happening with deepfake technology is key in the legal space. Lastly, Fred and Daniel share details about the courtroom at William & Mary Law School, which is considered to be the most technologically advanced courtroom in the country. Learn more about CLCT here: https://law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/clct/. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/E5q 

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. answers podcast listener mail:

- How can my client be better prepared for litigation before the court case is even filed?

- Do online jury projects work?

- If the witness only has two hours, is that enough for witness preparation and training?

- How long does it take to properly train a witness?

- When should I talk about damages at trial? - My witness is using marijuana to deal with their anxiety about the case. What should I do?

- What are the top opening statement mistakes?

CSI Litigation Consultant Ava Hernandez, M.A. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss witness mental health. Often, fact witnesses that are preparing for deposition may be suffering from psychological issues that could impact their performance during prep and especially during the actual deposition. Bill and Ava talk about how witnesses that have been summoned to testify could be dealing with anxiety not just about the litigation itself, but also other issues in their personal and professional lives that make it challenging for them to focus and perform during deposition prep. All witnesses need to be evaluated, assessed, and any emotional or mental issues need to be identified and addressed, before the attorney begins their deposition preparation with the witness. They also discuss how some witnesses will appear to be doing better than they actually are and may be reluctant to allow others to know how they are really feeling, so working with someone who has experience asking the right questions of the witness to assess their true emotional and mental state is crucial. It's important to acknowledge how unfamiliar the situation is, to validate their feelings, and process those feelings so they can focus fully on the preparation. Lastly, Bill and Ava discuss practical steps that can be taken with witnesses to maximize their deposition performance. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Aiq

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discuss the concept of operant conditioning and how it can be used with witnesses, particularly during deposition prep. Dr. Wood defines operant conditioning as the creation of an association between a behavior and the outcome. There can be both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, though its important to understand that negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment. Negative reinforcement is the elimination of a negative stimulus, not punishment. When working with witnesses to make them feel comfortable and confident about their performance during witness prep, its important to balance the negative feedback with the positive and be specific with the positive feedback so the witness understands what they are doing well and can draw on that as the prep continues. Negative feedback has to be constructive and the timing of any feedback, positive or negative, must be given at the moment that it is recognized. The witness must be able to recognize the association between their answer and the feedback. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/erz

Bill Mitchell, Founding Partner, Cruser & Mitchell joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss negotiation in litigation. Bill Mitchell shares his philosophy on managing litigation and comments on the lack of focus on the negotiation phase of litigation vs. the outsized focus on trial, when fewer than 1% of cases go to trial. Bill talks about mistakes that he sees defense attorneys making including not identifying the leverage point for every case and not being an open communicator and engaging in open discussions with opposing counsel. Bill Mitchell discusses his approach when dealing with plaintiff attorneys who are not willing to negotiate and how important communication is in those situations. Lastly, Bill talks about timing for negotiations, parachuting in on cases, and how he handle multiples co-defendants. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/mEq

Gene Kissane, Partner at Cole Scott & Kissane, John Nunnally, Attorney at Ragsdale Liggett, and Billy Davis, Partner at Bovis, Kyle, Burch & Medlin join Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the hottest topic in the legal industry today: Artificial Intelligence. The group discuss their initial perspectives on how they think AI is going to impact the legal field and litigation, what the discussions are about AI in their firms, and how they are using AI today. They talk about whether AI is an existential threat to law firms and how lawyers will adapt their way of doing business since the introduction of AI. The group shares ideas about efficiencies that they can see when leveraging AI including as a starting place for drafts and for business process applications such as accounting and billing. They have a broader discussion about the billable hour and flat fees and how AI may have an impact there and how important it is to recognize the places where AI can help and where its not appropriate to use in the legal space. The group also talk about what clients may expect from their firms with regards to using AI as well as whether AI is an advantage for plaintiff's attorneys over defense attorneys. Lastly, the panel discusses how questions about using or not using AI in specific cases such as med mal and transportation may come into play and be leveraged as a potential new standard of care. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/9hn

CSI Litigation Consultant Ava Hernandez, M.A. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss the concept of dogmatism in jurors. Ava defines what dogmatism is and shares the different perspectives of psychologists about whether dogmatism is a personality trait or is domain specific. Steve and Ava talk about open and closed systems of thinking and how dogmatism doesn't allow an individual to change their perspective, even in the face of evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They also discuss how to approach jury selection to identify dogmatic jurors during voir dire and whether and how someone can be lifted out of their dogmatic belief state. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OBB

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. continues his conversation on trucking litigation with plaintiff trucking attorney Joe Fried, Founding Partner of Fried Goldberg LLC. In this episode, Bill asks Joe about the behavior of some plaintiff attorneys who express disdain for the insurance company, who refuse to settle or negotiate, and take a very aggressive stance in dealing with the defense. They also discuss how defense witness ""pivoting"" kills credibility at deposition (and trial) and greatly helps the plaintiff's attorney make his/her case, and that while being on different sides of the table, plaintiff and defense attorneys are actually very similar in what they both wish to accomplish and how they want to make the world a better place. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/YRy

Plaintiff trucking attorney Joe Fried, Founding Partner of Fried Goldberg LLC, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about a wide range of topics in trucking litigation including the importance of sincere and effective communication in the litigation process, the definition of a nuclear verdict, how Joe approaches a case from the outset, and how juror anger is only one of the factors influencing nuclear verdicts. Bill and Joe also discuss the hesitancy on the defense side of settling, the staggering differences between the plaintiff and defense bars regarding communication, training, and sharing of information, how clients pressure defense attorneys to take cases to trial even when it is best to settle, and their perspective on jury selection and how less is more in opening statements. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/KrO

Jacqueline Altman, Partner at Naman Howell & Jason Goodnight, Partner at Fraden, Farris, Quillin, Goodnight, Roberts + Ward join Steve Wood, Ph.D. to talk about the gig economy. They discuss the complications and challenges from a litigation perspective for this growing, but still relatively new, industry. Jacq and Jason describe what the gig economy is, how broad it is, and how little case law exists today specific to the gig economy. The group discuss the similarities and differences of gig economy litigation when compared to other areas such as transportation or patent law. Jacq, Jason, and Steve also talk about how the plaintiffs bar has become more aggressive in targeting gig economy companies, what gig economy companies need to look for in their corporate representatives, and how to address jurors who may not be as familiar with gig economy companies and practices. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/EgG

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. answer podcast listener questions: 

- How will AI change the legal industry and who will benefit the most, plaintiffs or defendants?
- Are all nuclear verdict juries angry? How do I spot angry jurors in voir dire?
- How do I handle witnesses who are dealing with personal issues?
- Why do witnesses have such a deep desire to pivot and why are Yes/No answers so unsatisfying for witnesses to give?
- Do attorneys welcome you with open arms when you are brought in on a case?
- I need to mock try my case but I don't know if certain evidence will be allowed in. How do I deal with evidence that may or may not be allowed in?

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about attorneys who "parachute" into a case late. These parachuting situations are happening more often, especially when the excess carrier gets involved and brings in their heavy hitter, but the geographic and culture differences of an outsider can have a material impact on jurors. It is possible for parachuting attorneys to win over a jury but there are some very specific things that must be taken into consideration by the outside attorney: 

1. Be authentic - Do not try to appropriate the local geography/culture (e.g. east coast attorneys should not wear cowboy boots if they are trying a case in Texas or Montana). Be cognizant of cultural differences such as the speed at which they speak, etc.; 
2. Be passionate; jurors want passion from the attorneys representing both parties;
3. Be respectful; do not talk down to the jury;
4. Utilize local counsel; local counsel needs to play a significant role in the case because it will help with diversifying the team. It's important to not have a table full of attorneys from outside the venue. 

Oscar Lara, Shareholder at Rincon Law Group, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about translators for non-native English speakers or foreign-born witnesses and the challenges of working with interpreters during witness preparation and for testimony. Much of Oscar's  practice involves working with many Spanish-speaking witnesses and he shares the challenges of working with these witnesses, of using interpreters during witness prep, and the difficulties associated with different dialects. Bill, Steve and Oscar talk about how the language barrier can also be a challenge for jurors in a trial setting and the additional difficulties for witnesses who are able to speak English but it might be more broken English or speak with a heavy accent so they are not great communicators in English. The group also talks about regional and language differences in the jury pool and how to assess jurors on their ability to comprehend English during jury selection, the irrational fears of foreign-born witnesses, and the importance of building trust with these witnesses.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talk about their latest paper published in CLM Magazine on Preventing Nuclear Settlements at Deposition and the dangers of pivoting during deposition. Steve and Bill discuss the risks to witnesses who are encouraged by defense counsel to pivot during testimony and how cases where witnesses are told to pivot settle for higher amounts than they should. They talk about the strategic and economic risks of pivoting and how a witness that pivots during their deposition is providing a direct benefit to opposing counsel. Steve and Bill describe how effective witness deposition training is predicated on a concept they call 'Embrace & Reject' and how important it is to avoid amygdala hijack during testimony.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the difference between witness prep and witness training and how the combination of the defense attorney with a witness training expert is the perfect partnership. Some attorneys don't understand or appreciate the difference between witness prep and witness training. Witness prep is the attorney's job going over documents and exhibits and developing the legal strategy. Witness training is focused on working with the witness on their cognition, behavior, and emotion, delivering a sophisticated neurocognitive training that creates a more effective witness. Getting a positive outcome from testimony requires the combination and partnership of both defense counsel and a witness training expert. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Ye9

Dr. Steve Wood shares what to look for in a corporate representative and a list of five (5) essential elements for someone to serve as an effective 30(b)(6) witness:

1) Humility - The individual has to feel comfortable saying "I don't know". 
2) Patience - The witness needs to wait for the questioner to finish asking their question before responding. They also have to be patient with the  deposition and litigation process as a whole. 
3) Emotional poise - The witness must avoid making emotional mistakes and avoid being baited into emotional reactions by opposing counsel.
4) Confidence - An effective witness must be able to embrace their conduct and be confident and steadfast when being pushed by opposing counsel. 
5) Open-mindedness - An effective corporate rep must trust the process. They have to take witness training and deposition prep seriously. They also must have a strong ability to focus on the task at hand and not allow themselves to be distracted. 

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ph4

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about a list of words that the brain normally doesn't think of as bad words but which can be really bad words if a witness says them, or agrees to them, in deposition or trial testimony. These are trap words that lock witnesses into inflexible positions and are a big reason why witness effectiveness training, prior to testimony, is crucial to litigation success.

The Bad Word List (aka the anti-reptile word list): always/never; must/should; required/obligated/duty; insure/guarantee; every/everything/all; any/anything; risk/danger/harm/safety; well-being; priority; important; prevent; deviate; breach; violate. Each of these words eliminate judgment and circumstances and if written in policies and procedures can get you into trouble precisely because they remove judgment from the equation.

The Good Word List (words to use when appropriate during testimony): judgment; training; experience; appropriate; reasonable; sufficient; circumstances; situation.

Words that are "Middle of the Road" Words (not necessarily good words nor bad words; use judiciously): potentially; maybe; possibly; sometimes; not necessarily.

Dr. Kyle Boone, Clinical Neuropsychologist and Clinical Professor at UCLA, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) in litigation. TBI claims are increasing exponentially and Dr. Boone gives an overview of concussions and mild traumatic brain injuries and discusses assumptions, myths, and truths about the diagnosis of a mild TBI. Dr. Boone and Dr. Kanasky, Jr. discuss how these issues play out in litigation, what defense attorneys need to be aware of in TBI cases, juror assumptions about concussions, and how to best utilize and cross-examine expert witnesses in TBI litigation. Contact Dr. Boone at [email protected].

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about egregious conduct in the trucking and transportation industry. Bill describes the importance of accurately assessing your case early with focus groups to find out what jurors might think about the case.

Bill also lists specific behaviors and topics that jurors consistently have issues with in trucking and transportation cases: 1) Dash cam video; 2) Unenforced policies; 3) Log falsifications; 4) Driver substance abuse; 5) Poor hiring practices; 6) Cell phone use by driver; 7) Listening to YouTube (but not watching); 8) Weak driver training; 9) Excessive speed; 10) Driving in inclement weather; 11) Sleeping hour violations; 12) Social media posts.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/3nd

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. discuss who's to blame when things go poorly with a case. Bill and Steve share stories of when and how jury consultants get blamed or are set up as the fall guy for situations when depositions, jury selections, or trials turn out badly for the defense. They talk about the risk in accuracy, reliability, and predictability when cutting corners with jury research and the importance of a methodical, scientific process for recruiting, screening, and compensating jurors for a mock trial. They also discuss the problems with clients requesting to accomplish too much in a single mock trial when its a complicated case, not putting on the best opposition case in a mock trial, and how the reluctance on the defense side to admit liability can create risks and that admitting liability and anchoring damages needs to be tested in a mock trial. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/3vv

Holly Howanitz, Partner, Wicker Smith joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about ways to prepare opening statements that attract and hold juror attention and engagement. Holly talks about using visual stimuli in openings, her thoughts on the length of her openings, and how she decides how long her openings will be. In addition, Holly discusses managing turnover within the firm when associates or attorneys leave to take another job, how her firm helps getting younger attorneys experience, and why clients need to understand the necessity of getting these younger attorneys valuable experience with witness prep, mediations, and trial. Bill and Holly also talk about managing disagreements with clients or a lack of alignment on the assessment or strategy of a case. Lastly they discuss the role of fitness and managing your physical and mental health when having stressful jobs. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/qNd

Dr. Steve Wood discusses the topic of humanizing the corporate defendant. The data doesn’t support that making the argument to jurors that the corporation is made up of regular people who just go to work and try to do their best. Mock trials and actual trials have consistently demonstrated that jurors see through these arguments and don't buy into this. Jurors also discount arguments made about how the company supports other worthy causes, recognizing that those charitable contributions are tax write-offs and calling those actions out as insincere or tainted. 

Based on all this, what can be done to humanize the corporate defendant?
1) Work with your corporate representatives by getting them involved early to ensure they are prepared for trick questions in deposition, present well at deposition and trial, and that their testimony and demeanor is credible; 
2) Have a plan for communicating in a crisis. Work with an experienced crisis management and crisis response team to define the narrative of the incident and the company's response. A strategic and thoughtful crisis communication response can defend and even bolster the reputation of the company even before the possibility of litigation arises; 
3) Get an idea of anti-corporate bias in jury selection by asking more insightful voir dire questions and digging deeper into juror attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and personalities to identify explicit or implicit biases; 
4) Make a plan to address head-on the topic that plaintiff's counsel will bring up about your client valuing profits over safety; 
5) During trial, be cognizant of how the corporate rep is behaving and the impression the corporate rep is giving the jury, even while they are just sitting at the defense table. 
Humanizing the corporate defendant is possible, but it requires a deliberate approach and being aware of juror perceptions throughout the entire litigation process.

Sorena Fallin, Partner & Matt Cassman, Associate Attorney from Ragsdale Liggett join Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the recently signed tort reform bill in Florida,  HB 837. The changes apply to causes of action accruing after the effective date of March 24, 2023 and prior to the bill becoming law, reports state that plaintiffs’ firms filed approximately 100,000 lawsuits. Sorena outlines the bill and the impact it will have on defense firms and insurance companies. She shares details about the reduction in the statute of limitations and the change in the law that limits the amount of evidence of past medical bills to what has been paid versus what was billed. The new law changes Florida’s apportionment standard from a pure comparative negligence approach to a modified comparative negligence approach. Also under the new law, if a jury finds that a plaintiff is more than 50% at fault for their own harm, then the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages from any defendant. This may reduce the volume of litigation for defense firms and may allow more pre-suit resolutions. Sorena and Matt also talk about letters of protection, the overall impact on medical malpractice litigation in Florida, the reaction of the plaintiff's bar, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/9JD

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about jury selection and why demographics and intelligence are not predictive of pro-defense jurors. A mistake defense counsel often make is identifying a few demographic criteria and then selecting a jury based on those criterion. Instead, voir dire should be conducted to gain a deeper understanding of a juror's attitudes, experiences, personality, and beliefs which are the key drivers of their evaluation and decision making process. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/CC1

Aaron Rolen, Senior Counsel with The Bassett Firm, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about managing your career as a younger attorney. Aaron shares his perspective as a younger attorney and the advantages he has realized from staying with the same firm for a number of years versus bouncing around to chase new opportunities. He also talks about what defense attorneys can do better strategically and logistically and offers his views on how to handle witness preparation. Lastly, Bill and Aaron discuss the difference between a litigator and a trial attorney, the importance of storytelling that trial attorneys exhibit when compared to litigators, and getting and accepting feedback on your story plan. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/vSx

Doug Marcello, Chief Legal Officer with Bluewire, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about the latest report from the American Tort Reform Foundation on Judicial Hellholes. Doug shares his analysis of the report including some of the common denominators: anchoring and changing jury demographics in some areas. Bill and Doug also discuss how much of a danger nuclear settlements are and how little attention they are getting, as well as the role and purpose of training manuals and policies and procedures, and suggestions on better ways to manage the topic of safety. Lastly, Doug shares what he is seeing being successful in current litigation such as being proactive, being prepared against Reptile, and provides updates on Bluewire. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/iDs

Sean Murphy, Practice Leader for CSI's Crisis Communications Practice,  talks with Dr. Steve Wood about handling the crisis response to cybersecurity breaches. Sean offers good and bad examples of companies involved in cybersecurity crises, how they handled those situations, and what were the outcomes.  Sean shares a guide that companies who have successfully navigated cybersecurity breaches and risks followed by taking a methodical, strategic approach to a crisis:

1. Top management led the crisis response;
2. Communicated quickly and transparently about the breach; 
3. Designated an effective spokesperson; 
4. Offered a solution; 
5. Never played the blame game; 
6. Made a change in how they handled their customer's data to prevent this from happening again

Lastly, Sean shares his thoughts on how to handle internal communications. He covers the importance of having your crisis team work as part of the privileged team so that those communications are protected in any future potential litigation. And he also talks about the value of having a crisis plan in advance that outlines management of company policies on what and how employees can and should communicate and when.

Attorney Larry Schnapf and author and JFK assassination expert Jefferson Morley join Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to continue the discussion about the legal issues and challenges being mounted to obtain the release of all government documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Larry, Jeff, and Bill talk about the Schlesinger memo, the actions of the CIA in the early 60s, including their surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald, the Gannon memo, the fact that both President Trump and President Biden had committed to releasing all documents but both have found excuses to not do so, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/zUn

Attorney Larry Schnapf and author and JFK assassination expert Jefferson Morley join Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to discuss the lawsuit they have filed to obtain the release of all government documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Larry, Jeff, and Bill discuss the results of the multiple mock trials that have been conducted related to the assassination, the JFK Records Act, the process they have been going through to get the remaining documents released, the role of the CIA and FBI, the process the government employs in classifying and declassifying documents, and much more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/6c8

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. describes how to assess jurors more accurately during the jury selection process by implementing specific measures. There are two primary ways to measure something: using dichotomous variables or continuous variables. Dichotomous is a singular (i.e. binary) choice between two options (e.g. yes/no).  Continuous variables offer multiple options, such as rating on a scale from 0-10 scale. Using continuous variables to measure juror sentiment allows you to understand the intensity of their position. Once jurors have selected a number, you want to ask probing questions to get to the why of their selection. A yes/no (i.e. dichotomous) doesn't get you that; you need to go deeper and get more specific by using continuous variables. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/jbK

Zack Fletcher, Senior Associate with Wood, Smith, Henning, & Berman in Chicago joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about a recent unique jury trial in which Zack had to defend his client against a pro se litigant in Cook County, Illinois.  

Zack shares details of the litigation process, including the fact that there were very few settlement negotiations that took place and the plaintiff decided to proceed pro se with very limited discovery. Because the plaintiff was pro se, the court gave the plaintiff lots of leeway which made defending the case even more challenging. Multiple motions in limine were filed with the majority denied. Zack describes his approach with jury selection, particularly in contrast to the plaintiff, and also shares what his thought process was for drafting his opening statement. The jury only deliberated for about an hour and came back with a defense verdict. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/VpO

Attorneys Jason Hendren & Jackie Clark, both Partners with Hall Booth Smith, join Dr. Steve Wood to talk about medical malpractice cases. The group discusses which med mal cases are the most difficult to litigate (birth trauma; wrongful death; paralysis cases) and the challenges with managing juror sympathy in cases with young injured parties. They talk about how juror perceptions of the reputation of well-known/top tier facilities impact juror decision-making, plus the challenges of traumatic brain injury (TBI) cases, the importance of counter anchoring for the defense, whether jurors understand the medicine, and how they manage co-defendants in their cases. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/T78

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about witness testimony and a concept in psychology called 'cognitive momentum' (the "Yes" train). Opposing counsel will rapidly throw out easy, factual questions to get your witness used to saying 'yes', speeding up their responses, lowering their defenses, and then eventually they fall prey to questions for which the answer should not be 'yes.' Witnesses must be trained to force cognition through sophisticated, neurocognitive training. Bill and Steve also discuss the concept of the 'repetition spin cycle' and what the brain is dealing with when being bombarded with repetitive negative stimulus like being asked the same question over and over again and how an untrained brain reacts to this repetition. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ySn

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about witness testimony and the problems and dangers of pivoting during deposition questioning. They discuss how defense attorneys don’t realize how they are opening the door to counterattacks from opposing counsel when they encourage their witnesses to pivot and answer questions with phrases like "Yes, but..." Steve and Bill describe the psychology behind why providing detailed explanations in normal, everyday situations is very different than in the adversarial environment of a deposition. Another danger for witnesses they talk about is repetitive questions and how witnesses must be trained to hold their ground with plaintiff questions that are repeated over and over again. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/aJl

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. is joined by trial attorneys Shane O'Dell of Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee and John Nunnally of Ragsdale Liggett to talk about new year's resolutions and what they are changing or doing differently in how they manage their litigation. Shane and John share how they are encouraging their clients to be more proactive in their litigation and not wait for plaintiff's counsel to make the first move every time. They talk about pursuing early mediations for cases that lend themselves to earlier settlement discussions and continuing to educate their clients on the value and benefits of being proactive. Shane also discusses his goal to drive more communication and sharing within the defense bar. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/iWy

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. close out 2022 with a podcast Year in Review. They talk about what they've learned this year including starting to see some clients operating more proactively and early in litigation and the benefits they are realizing by doing so. Steve and Bill discuss other topics covered during the year, and in particular, the importance of episodes dedicated to mental and physical health. They also preview a few topic ideas for podcasts in 2023 and share some additional holiday thoughts and observations.

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about the risky language in company policies and procedures and the language and information on company websites. Many companies create a level of expectation for safety that is unattainable and put these organizations at risk of being attacked by plaintiff attorneys during litigation. Using language about safety being the top priority in manuals, training materials, policies, procedures, and on websites only creates litigation exposure that can be potentially devastating to the company and often serves no tangible benefit to the company when published. Plaintiff attorneys will use this language to demonstrate that the company didn't meet its own safety standards when focusing on specific incidents and litigation.

Bill also talks about how one of the main goals of Reptile is to beat you and outmaneuver you in discovery. Plaintiff attorneys are focused on destroying witnesses at deposition in order to increase their demand. Their preference is to remove your negotiating power and leverage and get you to settle for a huge amount earlier so they can get their money faster. Reptile is a neurocognitive attack on your brain which requires sophisticated training to protect witnesses from being tricked and trapped by Reptile plaintiff attorneys. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/RVp

Wellness Specialist Jen Donovan joins Dr. Steve Wood for the second part of this episode focused on wellness and managing stress. In this episode, Jen demonstrates different simple exercises and movements as ways to relieve stress, including multiple breathing tips. Jen also talks about sound healing and sound therapy exercises. Lastly, Jen shares tips for how to get started, managing the timing of when to start, and how to make better, healthier choices. Jen's concluding thoughts: what you eat, drink, breathe, and think becomes your guide to physical and mental fitness. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/uRF

Wellness Specialist Jen Donovan joins Dr. Steve Wood for a two-part episode about wellness topics, including the benefits of Rawfood Nutrition, and demonstrates some exercises to help manage the stresses of work and the holidays. Jen shares tips on eating properly, sleeping properly, breathing properly, and moving our body properly and the importance of devoting at least 3 weeks to any change to make it stick. Jen talks about the difference between mindlessness and mindfulness, about setting the environment of your space, the importance of good posture and of setting an intention for the day at the start of every morning. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/s6a

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares what and whom he is grateful and thankful for. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oAJ

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. continue answering podcast listener and viewer questions:

- How do you advise handling voir dire in federal court when you only have 30-60 minutes to ask questions of jurors?

- What are the opportunities with using a supplemental juror questionnaire?

- What is the best way to question my client during direct or rehabilitation examination?

- Are engineers bad jurors for the defense?

- What types of demonstrative exhibits work best for jurors? Should I always go high tech?

- If my witness has an emotional meltdown during their deposition, how do I get them back on track?

- How should I test evidence in a mock trial format if I don't know if the judge will let it in?

- How do I deal with a defendant who is experiencing extreme guilt and wants to admit guilt even though they didn't do anything wrong and it was just a bad accident?

- From a jury consulting standpoint, does a juror's health status matter?

To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/2RM

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. continue their series of answering podcast listener and viewer questions:

- How is the movement of people from blue states to red states impacting the jury pool? 
- Can a Middle Eastern defendant win at trial with a predominantly white/rural jury?
- How do I mitigate damages at trial on a case when my client is admitting liability?
- Should I ask the judge to show a short clip of the plaintiff's day-in-the-life video during jury selection?
- In voir dire, what do I do with jurors who are quiet and won't say much?
- During jury selection, how useful is juror social media information?

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ibp

Shane O'Dell, Member at Naman, Howell, Smith, and Lee PLLC, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about helping younger associates grow through mentoring and development opportunities and how to keep those younger attorneys in your practice. Shane talks about the challenges for early career attorneys and what they can do to overcome. Shane shares his experience with recognizing the importance of developing relationships and trust over time as a path toward building a reputation and earning future opportunities. Shane and Bill discuss ideas on how to build a book of business and ways that the defense bar needs to evolve in the future. They also talk about how defense firms can keep young attorneys from job hopping and chasing new opportunities and the importance of helping clients understand why they need to be open to having younger associates work on their cases in order to help them develop. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/5um

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. answer frequently asked questions from podcast listeners and viewers. Some of the specific questions asked and answered:

- What are some of the things that jurors are highly critical of at trial that I may not be aware of?

- How do jurors perceive out-of-town defense attorneys?

- How do I get a former employee to cooperate for a deposition?

- Do jurors like attorneys who wear glasses?

- Do expert witnesses really impact jury decision making?

- How long should my opening statement be?

- Does it look bad in front of the jury if I object a lot?

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares tips and ideas for young attorneys to build a book of business. Doing business development is not easy, but taking the time and steps to doing it can really pay off.

Two specific ideas from Bill:

1) Writing - Write articles on topics that prospects and clients can get value from and get those articles published in a legal journal; look for niche publications which are often hungry for content. If you need help getting started on topics or with writing, partner with a seasoned attorney.

2) Speeches - Deliver presentations to different groups. Leverage the article(s) you've written and published to build your presentation content. Search out conferences where you can speak, particularly that include audiences with potential clients.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/W18

Dr. Steve Wood describes four psychological concepts that help to explain why some witnesses make mistakes in their testimony performance: 

1) Yerkes-Dodson Law suggests there is a relationship between performance and arousal. Increased arousal can help improve performance, but only up to a certain point. At the point when arousal becomes excessive, performance diminishes. 

2) The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe they are smarter and more capable than they actually are. Essentially, low-ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. 

3) Evaluation apprehension is a human tendency to try to look better or the fear of being evaluated. This creates a lot of anxiety because of their concern about how they are perceived by others who are watching them and their performance. 

4) "Thin-slicing" refers to the ability of our subconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience or information. 

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/EdX

Rebecca Brewster, President and COO of the American Transportation Institute (ATRI), joins the podcast to talk with Dr. BIll Kanasky, Jr. about ATRI, a research and education organization. Rebecca shares details on her background and different ATRI research studies and how their research benefits and informs the transportation and trucking industry. Bill and Rebecca discuss specific research topics that ATRI has studied including nuclear verdicts, nuclear settlements, driver shortage, CDL age limit reductions, driver health, driver compensation, women in trucking, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/2vH

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers two witness deposition testimony topics: witnesses who guess and witnesses who freeze. 

1) You have to identify when a witness is guessing in their deposition. Key phrases to watch out for besides "I guess," are "I think," "I believe," "I probably," "I assume." You need to explain to your witness that even if they tell you they won't guess, their brain is wired to guess and they need to be educated on what a guess sounds like and must work with them to correct these guesses during mock deposition questioning. 

2) In addition to the well-known responses of fight or flight, there is a third response that doesn't get the same level of attention: "freeze". Referred to in psychology as "freeze appease", this survival response leads to the witness agreeing with the questioner on every question in order to appease them. When witnesses freeze, they have to appease to survive. Dealing with the freeze response requires neurocognitive training to help the witness be prepared during their testimony.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/V51

Dr. Steve Wood shares his observations, insights, and experience with jury selection and what works and doesn't work when picking a jury. Steve talks about the dangers of selecting a jury based solely on demographics and the criticality of learning about a juror's experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. He emphasizes the importance of the specific questions asked and approach taken by the attorney during voir dire and recommends that counsel treat voir dire more like a focus group and dig deeper into juror responses. Get potential jurors talking to explain and express their beliefs and attitudes to figure out if they are a good juror for your side. Steve also cautions attorneys on social desirability bias which is the tendency of some jurors to give answers that make the person look good and which may be concealing their real feelings or attitudes. He suggests digging as much as feasible into juror responses and the details in their answers as a way to help support your position for striking for cause, if necessary. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/GG1

In the final part of this three-part topic, Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. and Dr. Steve Wood discuss the last of the 13 cognitive distortions that cripple witnesses during testimony. Cognitive distortions are irrational thinking patterns where the brain makes connections that may or may not exist and can negatively impact testimony performance unless corrected via cognitive reframing. The cognitive distortions Bill and Steve discuss in this episode are: 11) Emotional reasoning - when witnesses’ emotional thinking replaces their logical thinking. Also known as “amygdala hijack,” (i.e., the fight or flight response) 12) Control fallacies - when witnesses believe they have no control over the testimony process, feel powerless during testimony, and often assume a submissive role in the question-and-answer interaction. 13) Fallacy of fairness - when witnesses believe the lawsuit isn’t “fair,” leading to intense feelings of anger and resentment and impacting their ability to deliver effective deposition testimony. All 13 of these cognitive distortions can be overcome through a neurocognitive assessment and training that addresses each individually. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/yxN

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares his experience working with plaintiff attorneys on cases. Bill works on the plaintiff's side when a corporation, which is typically the defendant, is the plaintiff and engages Courtroom Sciences for litigation consulting. This type of work has led to some very specific learnings about how plaintiff attorneys in commercial litigation operate and behave. Four key characteristics of successful plaintiff attorneys:

1) their desire to win is unmatched and often higher than the defense side;
2) they actively and consistently use focus groups and mock trials, and in particular, employ the test/retest methodology to tweak and adjust their case to improve it, leading to much higher accuracy and confidence;
3) they conduct their jury research as early as possible in the timeline of the case, allowing it to help them guide their discovery when it comes to case themes, case facts, witnesses, etc.;  
4) they are very open to, and actively solicit, constructive criticism and feedback from consultants in order to help make them better attorneys.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/G4a

Mike Bassett, Senior Partner, The Bassett Law Firm joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. and Dr. Steve Wood to talk about early case management, the timing of working up a case, and what is best to do first and early. Early case management sets the tempo and helps gain momentum for the defense. Mike shares how in the first 30-60 days of a case conducting focus groups always him to know what resonates with jurors and what doesn't and the value of interviewing witnesses early. Mike talks about how defense attorneys need to educate their clients and carriers on why they need to be investing in this early case management, research, and witness prep. There is significant, tangible value in having juror perspectives while discovery is still open and before witnesses have testified. The plaintiff's bar tests cases at an exponentially higher rate than the defense bar and will test discrete issues to learn what will resonate with jurors. Bill, Steve, and Mike also discuss the characteristics of strong plaintiff attorneys: always pushing the file; always have a plan; develop their themes early; focus group cases early; create maximum risk and leverage in every deposition; are detailed oriented and very prepared. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OVJ

Paul Motz, Shareholder, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, joins the podcast to talk about what it takes to become a successful trial attorney. Finding good associates is a challenge these days. A couple of reasons for this is the job-hopping of associates in pursuit of a bigger paycheck and also the shift in people wanting to find more work-life balance. But Paul points out that being a trial attorney requires a different schedule and a different mentality. So what can trial attorneys do to better prepare their associates? Attorneys must treat their associates right and provide them with lots of opportunities to learn and grow. Trial attorneys should include their aspiring associates in as much of the case that makes sense and think about how to build rapport, camaraderie, and connection with their associates. Allow them opportunities to take ownership in specific situations and help associates understand that constantly switching firms is short-sighted because for a trial attorney, having an associate you can count on is invaluable. Associates who aspire to be a successful trial attorney must be willing to work hard and show initiative and take advantage of every opportunity offered to them. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/0ek 

In the second of a multi-part topic, Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss irrational thinking patterns. Steve and Bill describe how the brain makes connections that may or may not be connected in reality and how that type of irrational thinking can impact witness performance, requiring cognitive reframing to correct these irrational thinking patterns. Bill and Steve have identified 13 cognitive distortions that are crippling your witnesses and cover five additional distortions in this episode: 5) Catastrophizing – when your witness over-exaggerates the value of negative facts in the case, which leads to extreme anxiety; 6) Personalization – when your witness takes the litigation very personally, forgetting that plaintiff’s counsel is primarily focused on money; 7) Blaming – when your witness refuses to take any responsibility for their own actions or decisions, and instead blames others at the company or even the plaintiff; 8) Labeling – when your witness assigns a judgment to themselves based on one negative incident, instead of recognizing that no one is perfect, and that people can make honest mistakes; 9) Always being right – when your witness has the emotional need to always be right and/or to have an answer to everything; 10) 'Should' statements – when your witness falls into the trap of second guessing themselves regarding past conduct or decision. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Tib

Kevin Quinley, President of Quinley Risk Associates, talks about his extensive experience in the insurance industry and particularly as an expert witness. Bill and Kevin discuss several tips for attorneys on issues that arise when Kevin is requested to serve as an expert witness, including: last minute scheduling; failing to succinctly frame key issues and not being specific about what's needed from the expert witness; expectations of an immediate opinion from the expert witness after sharing only minimal information; and price resistance. Lastly, Kevin shares his thoughts on how younger attorneys can get more trial experience. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/M43

Joe Longfellow, Partner & Trial Attorney with Andrew, Crabtree, Knox & Longfellow, joins the podcast to talk about his work on civil rights defense cases primarily defending law enforcement officers, and also working with healthcare witnesses in med mal cases. Joe describes the challenges of witness prep of law enforcement and how he works with these often difficult witnesses. He also shares his approach to helping jurors understand the difference between negligence and deliberate indifference. Bill and Joe share their thoughts on preparing witnesses, the role that prior testimony plays in new litigation and how to prepare and handle, the goal of a witness at deposition, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/QHO

Baxter Drennon, Partner with Hall Booth Smith, joins the podcast to talk about responses to Reptile Theory questions, in particular the answer of "It depends." This response can make some defense attorneys uncomfortable. Steve, Bill, and Baxter discuss the circumstances in which "It depends" is the truthful and most accurate response. They talk about the validity and comfort of a witness varying their responses and what cognitive factors are involved in the way a question is responded to. Baxter shares the approach he takes with his witnesses and the importance of identifying the purpose of the deposition as a way to manage responses. The group talk about the dangers and risks of a witness pivoting when responding to opposing counsel questions, as well as, the opportunity and considerations with a follow-up question to an "It depends" response. Lastly, Steve, Bill, and Baxter discuss the necessity of educating witnesses on the strategy of the case, for them to understand the roles of the witness and the attorney, and what jurors respond to, positively and negatively, when hearing witness testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/hLQ

In the first of a multi-part topic, Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss irrational thinking patterns. Steve and Bill describe how the brain makes connections that may or may not be connected in reality and how that type of irrational thinking can impact witness performance, requiring cognitive reframing to correct these irrational thinking patterns. Bill and Steve have identified 13 cognitive distortions that are crippling your witnesses and cover four of these distortions in this episode:

1) Polarized thinking - this type of thinking occurs when your witness feels they have to be perfect as a witness;

2) Mental filtering - when a witness magnifies negative aspects of the case and ignores or discounts positive facts;

3) Overgeneralization - this happens when your witness focuses on a single negative event from the past and makes an extreme conclusion that all other events in the future will be negative;

4) Jumping to conclusions - your witness is convinced that there is no chance at obtaining a favorable trial verdict or settlement.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ImG

Nick Rauch, Attorney with Larson King in Minnesota, joins the podcast to talk about defending against the plaintiff Reptile Theory, particularly by starting defense preparation very early in the case. Nick and Bill discuss where and how early they are seeing Reptile in the litigation process, plus the importance and implications of a corporate representative's deposition testimony and having them prepared for potential Reptile attacks and traps. Nick also shares his perspectives on anchoring and counter-anchoring, how these concepts can start in the initial communications about the case, and making sure you are discussing the strategy for anchoring and counter-anchoring with clients so everyone is in alignment. Bill and Nick also discuss how to talk to witnesses about their role in testimony, how they fit within the broader strategy of the case, and the critical importance of likeability in testimony. Watch the video this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/KdZ

Dr. Steve Wood is joined by CSI Crisis Communications Practice Leader Sean Murphy to discuss the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial. Sean describes how public opinion was being influenced daily during the trial and the narrative that was being communicated in the court of public opinion. Sean shares the approach that should be taken in litigation communications and what seemed to work for Johnny Depp's side and worked against Amber Heard's side during this trial. Steve talks about some elements of Reptile Theory that seemed apparent in closing arguments and they also share their assessment of how Johnny and Amber performed as witnesses, how they responded to questioning and cross-examination, and how they engaged with the jury. They conclude by noting how, although this is celebrity defamation case, its a good case to study to understand how to define and control the narrative of any trial. To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/cCK

Dr. Steve Wood gives an update on The Litigation Psychology Podcast schedule for the summer and a preview of some of the topics that will be featured in new episodes when the podcast returns from a short summer break. Those topics include the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, preparing a former employee for deposition, the fallacy of the reptile brain, social influence in the courtroom, top excuses we hear for not conducting jury research, how to prepare emotional witnesses for testimony, plus many more. To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OzS

Doug Marcello, Chief Legal Officer with Bluewire, joins the podcast to talk about the genesis of Bluewire and the benefits for trucking and transportation companies. Bluewire software analyzes vulnerabilities for motor carriers and provides recommendations to reduce or eliminate those vulnerabilities. It allows for a strategic, proactive response to help trucking companies avoid nuclear verdicts. Doug also talks about Bluewire Connect which is an online community limited to trucking industry individuals, trucking defense attorneys, and trucking insurance representatives. The Bluewire Connect forum allows for a free and active exchange of ideas and information between members, as well as helping them find information on resources, experts, vendors, etc. that can be of benefit to their business. Lastly, Doug and Bill discuss some of the primary sources of vulnerabilities for trucking companies, plus some of the less obvious vulnerabilities, and the importance of motor carriers having a formal crisis response plan. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oTb

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. revisits the very first paper he wrote titled: "Four Lethal but Preventable Mistakes in Civil Litigation". Bill discusses these four mistakes in detail including: #1 making witness prep the last priority; #2 a weak visual presentation; #3 overreliance on expert witnesses; and #4 going on the defensive early. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/o4p

Baxter Drennon, Partner with Hall Booth Smith in Little Rock, Arkansas, joins the podcast to talk about the different ways the defense can define a win. The definition of a win may not be simply a defense verdict or a zero dollar verdict. The definition of a win needs to be based on the goals of the client and the legal team needs to understand what the client's expectations are. Steve and Baxter talk about a few different ways of defining a "win" including: plaintiff filing a motion for voluntary dismissal; motion for summary judgment granted; mistrial caused by plaintiff's counsel; directive verdict; zero dollars at trial; settlement that is agreeable or avoiding a nuclear verdict; verdict that beats an offer at judgment; verdict less than expected; and less than demand, but not less than expected. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/9km

Defense attorney Billy Davis, Partner with Bovis, Kyle, Burch & Medlin in Atlanta, joins the podcast to talk about his experience participating in a recent Courtroom Sciences Corporate Representative Witness Evaluation and Training with his client and provides his perspectives on the difference between standard witness prep and Courtroom Sciences' witness training program. Billy shares his thoughts on how the Corporate Rep witness training allowed his client to evaluate multiple Corporate Rep candidates and how the training helped them see that perhaps the person most knowledgeable may not necessarily be the best choice to serve as the Corporate Rep for the company. Bill and Billy also discuss how doing the training early benefitted the client, the impact of emotion at deposition, and how the speed at which witnesses answer questions is one of the areas of control available to the witness in a deposition. Lastly, they talk about the challenges law firms are experiencing with keeping young associates and what can be done to improve retention. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/LXa

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers two critical witness testimony topics: the dangers of long answers and the risks of pivoting. Long answers, which often include commas, are dangerous at deposition and at trial. At deposition, long answers from witnesses lead to the sharing of more information with opposing counsel, which leads to even more questions, and cognitive fatigue of the witness. At trial, the jury can't follow long answers and they get bored. 

Witnesses who pivot during testimony open the door to a counter attack. Pivoting just gives plaintiff's counsel more information and then testimony turns into an argument, which the witness can't win. 

Lastly, Dr. Kanasky talks about the anchor bias and how, once the anchor is set, all subsequent questions must be answered in the context of the anchor, and the only way to address this is to break down the cognitive schema in advance so witnesses don't fall for the anchor. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/T8c

Dr. Steve Wood discusses the impact and influence that constant and consistent messaging has on us individually, and on prospective jurors. Steve explains the concept of the Mere Exposure Effect and how the more we are presented with specific topics or ideas, the more we develop thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes about those topics. He also discusses the concept of Social Proof and how our brain processes something ambiguous by following the patterns of other people's behaviors or opinions. Lastly, Steve discusses what can be done to counter specific messaging, particularly as it relates to plaintiff trucking and transportation advertising. A counter offensive is critical since these negative messages are directly influencing the prospective jury pool. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/8Jz

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. lays out what the game plan should be for witnesses before and during testimony. Bill talks about what attorneys need to be doing with witnesses the 24 hours before testimony, the four key things witnesses need to be coached and trained on as part of their preparation, and what witnesses should do during breaks in testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/WIn

James Feeney, Member, Dykama joins Dr. Steve Wood to discuss a recent defense verdict in a traumatic brain injury case. The plaintiff was injured in an vehicular accident and sued the automobile manufacturer for product liability. Jim provides details on how the defense for the case was constructed, what research was done with mock jurors, and the value of testing different combinations of evidence, themes, messaging, etc. in mock trials to help guide trial strategy. Jim also shares his philosophy on offering up alternate damage figures. Lastly, Jim tried this case recently so he also provides his perspective on jury selection and conducting voir dire with Covid restrictions and the challenges of trying a case with a socially distanced jury. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/kPp

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers five common mistakes being made when conducting focus groups, the consequences of these mistakes, and what adjustments should be made:

1) too much information on slides (less is more);

2) too many mock jurors (recruit a more reasonable number of 12-15);

3) too long of a day (juror fatigue is real; keep the days a reasonable length);

4) long presentations (juror attention span is short, keep presentations short);

5) the approach to testing damages (just want to get a feel for a range; a mock trial with juror deliberations is the method to get specifics).

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/tFi

Trial is a battle of perception and jurors pay very close attention to the behavior of the litigants, particularly the defendant. Behavioral consistency is highly correlated with honesty and truthfulness. In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. describes the 4 golden traits of an effective defendant including, 1) Professionalism; 2) Confidence/comfort; 3) Maintaining emotional poise; and 4) Engaged and attentive in the process. 

Why are these qualities so important? Jurors use their observations of defendant behaviors and reactions to judge your client. This process begins in jury selection and continues through opening statements, testimony of all witnesses, and closing arguments. So, defendants must maintain behavioral consistency on all fronts to give jurors a positive, consistent impression throughout the entire trial. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/tRI

In this episode Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss the importance of alternative causation, plus answer podcast viewer and listener questions. Steve and Bill talk about how jury research demonstrates that jurors don't care that the plaintiff has the burden of proof on causation and that human information processing requires them to identify cause. Because of this, defense attorneys must help jurors by providing alternative causation considerations in order for jurors to move to considering damages. Steve and Bill share their insights on planting seeds for your case in voir dire to ensure jurors will follow the judge's instructions and the value of using mock trials to test liability well before trial. 

Questions asked and answered in this episode:
- Can multiple witness be trained at one time and how does that work?
- Does a juror's social media activity have an impact on verdicts?
- How have damage awards changed since the onset of Covid?
- Does social inflation cause nuclear verdicts?

Watch the video of the episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/fMg

One of the most emotional, challenging, and difficult cases are birth injury cases. Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss some of the common themes they have seen during focus groups and mock trials for birth injury cases. Specifically, they share insights from jurors on these topics: 

- jurors' perceptions and lack of understanding of the employment status of physicians as independent contractors vs. being employees of the hospital; 
- jurors' awareness of the comparative time nurses spend with patients vs. doctors but who they hold ultimately responsible for care and why this can be a problem for the doctor; 
- jurors' opinions on the communications between all involved parties (nurses, doctors, hospital)
- challenge of dealing with the potentially conflicting situation of sympathy of jurors toward the plaintiff, their positive perceptions of healthcare professionals, and how this impacts their process in awarding damages; 
- jurors' perceptions of adherence to hospital rules and policies; 
- effectiveness of day in the life videos;
- and more.

Watch the video of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/upr

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares a case study from a recent trial to highlight the elements of successful trial testimony. Four keys of successful trial testimony are to: 
1) Control the pace of the questioning, 
2) Avoid pivoting, 
3) Deliver short, concise answers, and
4) Respond appropriately to emotional attacks by plaintiff's counsel. 

Bill also discusses tips on managing cases where you have a co-defendant and the challenges and opportunities with finger-pointing. Bill has been working on a number of cases recently where there are co-defendants and talks about the research that is necessary to determine if your co-defendant should be adverse to you. He shares the importance of testing and running mock trials to determine how juries are assigning blame and the value of knowing this information early in order to use in mediation and in developing trial strategy. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/u3z

Dr. Alyssa Parker, Litigation Consultant and an experienced Clinical Psychologist, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about working with witnesses who are dealing with trauma associated with a catastrophic accident or fatality. Alyssa and Bill discuss mistakes that the defense side often make with these emotional and traumatized witnesses, including ignoring or downplaying the suppression or avoidance of the memories of the traumatic event. They also talk about the necessity for these traumatized witnesses to get treatment for their trauma but how the stigma of therapy and mental health issues often limits how many seek out treatment. Lastly, Alyssa and Bill provide insights on what defense attorneys can do as they work with these traumatized witnesses and how each witness needs to be assessed in advance of any discussion about the litigation or preparing for their deposition testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/1AE

Baxter Drennon, Attorney with Hall Booth Smith in Little Rock, Arkansas joins the podcast to talk with Dr. Steve Wood about a range of topics around attorney credibility and improving as a trial lawyer. Baxter and Steve discuss the definition of a win, the necessity of gaining direct experience in trying cases, the philosophies about whether to go to trial or settle a case, and what types of training would be useful for defense attorneys to keep pace with the plaintiff's bar as they invest in their craft. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/H2e

Heather Bohnke, Partner with Gust Rosenfeld PLC in Arizona, joins the podcast to talk with Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. about the recently enacted ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court which has done away with peremptory strikes as January 1, 2022. Arizona has become the first state in the nation to eliminate peremptory challenges. Heather talks about the background behind why the Arizona Supreme Court made this ruling and what the impacts are, for both plaintiff and defense attorneys, in navigating the elimination of peremptory challenges. Bill and Heather discuss how attorneys will need to manage their voir dire without access to peremptory strikes and the increased importance of juror consulting and juror questionnaires in jury selection. They also talk about healthcare litigation, the challenges of working with healthcare witnesses, how healthcare marketing fuels plaintiff reptile attorneys, and how to deal with multiple co-defendants in healthcare litigation. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/cqp

Wellness Specialist Jennifer Donovan of Wellness 4 Judiciary joins the podcast to talk to Dr. Steve Wood about mental and physical wellbeing and what attorneys can do to relieve stress and anxiety and achieve clarity and tranquility. In part 1, Jennifer shared exercises to help witnesses and in this part she demonstrates several exercises for posture, breathing, and mental focus and intentional thought, which help with calmness and concentration. Jennifer also shares additional exercises and practices that help to calm the nervous system and achieve a sense of serenity in the mind. Watch the video of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/NpF

Wellness Specialist Jennifer Donovan of Wellness 4 Judiciary joins the podcast to talk to Dr. Steve Wood about mental wellbeing, mindfulness, and what witnesses can do to reduce stress levels, particularly when testifying. Jennifer demonstrates several helpful exercises to help relieve stress and create calmness, clarity, and focus. The exercises, which can be done either seated or standing, include attention to posture, breathing, shoulders, head & neck, and the jaw, plus intentional thoughts and visualizing positive outcomes for better self care. Watch the video version of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/b6u

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. answers more frequently asked questions from viewers and listeners of the podcast. Questions asked and answered in this episode:

- How to handle a defensive witness who is also young and inexperienced?

- What type of assessment(s) should be done of witnesses before they are prepped for deposition?

- What is a shadow jury?

- How is commercial litigation different than personal injury or catastrophic injury or death cases?

- Is it okay to Reptile my co-defendant who is adverse to my client?

Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Ztm

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about witness training for CEOs and some of the challenges with training C-level executives for deposition and trial testimony. Steve and Bill discuss how they work with these types of witnesses and some of the steps that these executives must be open to in order to maximize the benefits of the training and perform well during testimony. They describe the social psychology concept of state dependent learning plus how an executive's potential negative attitudes about attorneys can impact their approach to their witness preparation. Steve and Bill talk about the impact an executive's anger related to the litigation can have on their preparation and also why CEOs have to be okay with saying they don't know something, even if that is uncomfortable for them. Lastly, they cover the importance of how one dresses during testimony, the criticality of taking cognitive breaks while testifying and not just using breaks to catch up on work, and how their behavior at the defense table can impact juror perceptions during jury selection and the trial itself. Watch the video version of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/akV

Dr. Steve Wood delivers a preview of topics that will be addressed on The Litigation Psychology Podcast during 2022. A few of the hot topics that Steve and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. will be discussing during the year:

- the importance and necessity of communication and sharing of information amongst the defense bar; 

- celebrating defense bar victories, including insights on what's working for the defense, and what's leading to those wins and successful outcomes;  

- witness behavior, including recent observations and commentary on defendants taking the stand in their own defense and what's been successful and unsuccessful in those situations;

- mental health topics, covering witness, juror, and attorney mental health issues and their impact on litigation; 

- attorney leadership and the importance of providing opportunities and training for younger attorneys; 

- juror perceptions of different industries and individual roles of people who will be called to testify and how to improve and change any negative impressions;  

- plus much more.

Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/P6G

The 100th episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features trial attorneys Paul Motz from Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney and Brad Hughes from Clark Hill. Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. talk to Paul and Brad about the challenges of connecting with jurors during trials where masks are required and ideas on what to do. The group discuss their thoughts on counter-anchoring damages, why the insurance adjuster playbook doesn't work, and steps that need to be taken to diffuse a nuclear verdict before getting to trial. Paul and Brad offer their suggestions on how younger attorneys who lack experience can be provided opportunities to learn and talk about the difficult conversations that attorneys must have with their clients and their insurance companies about the investments that are necessary to avoid the ever-increasing nuclear verdicts and settlements. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/VWF

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discuss trial testimony, preparing witnesses for trial, and the steps necessary for the best results at trial. They talk about the process that should be followed and where witnesses and even attorneys fall short, leading to bad outcomes at trial.  Plaintiffs are continuing to increase demands and are wanting to go to trial as they see that as an advantage for them, especially against ill-prepared and under-prepared defense counsel. And the only way to be ready for trial is to invest in the weaponry (mock trials, jury research, witness training, jury selection, trial consulting, counter-anchoring) necessary to fight fire with fire and win. Bill shares the result from a recent case that just went to trial, where the demand was a nuclear demand and what led to a non-nuclear verdict that the legal team and client were thrilled with. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/uZU

Chris Patton, Partner at Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann and John Adams, Trial Lawyer at Gibson Dunn, join Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about commercial litigation and the article they co-authored titled Give the Jury What It Wants: Decision-Making in Trial Practice. Chris, John, and Bill discuss the importance of storytelling in trial and why and how to get the jury's attention early to frame the trial narrative. The group also talk about the availability bias and how jurors interpret and consider the information and litigants based on when and how much they are talked about by the attorneys. John and Chris share how they handle explaining complex concepts to jurors to help them understand so that they can properly evaluate the case facts and how they leverage sympathy and emotion in business litigation to help jurors relate. Lastly, the group talks about how to identify the right witnesses for the case, the way they handle bad facts at trial, and their perspective on bringing up tough questions during voir dire. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Rpe

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. share the latest updates on the Reptile training program. Recently, the program has gone through an evolution and some rebranding. There appears to be a phasing out of the "Reptile" term but the program is alive and well and there are now even more options for the plaintiff's bar to receive training on these variations of the Reptile Theory. Steve and Bill talk about the concept of cognitive schema and cognitive dissonance, which are keys to the success of Reptile attorneys, and why witnesses' brains need to be rewired and rebuilt to keep them from being taken advantage of by plaintiff attorneys. They also answer viewer mail including questions about doing a mock trial or focus group if you don't have videos of witnesses and the pros and cons of doing online surveys vs. a mock trial. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/bXZ

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about the problems with juror instructions. So many times, jurors don't understand them, don't pay attention to them, don't read them, are too long, etc. The biggest issues that jurors struggle with understanding are causation, burden of proof, negligence, past economic and non-economic damages, future economic and non-economic damages, and allocation of fault. 

To help jurors understand causation they must be educated and indoctrinated about causation beginning in jury selection, then repeating during opening and then again during closing so that by the time they get to deliberations, they have heard it a few times. For many jurors, burden of proof is confused with "beyond a reasonable doubt" due to their lack of understanding and what they have seen in TV shows and movies. Jurors don't understand the legal definition of negligence and is often just assumed to exist simply because there is a bad outcome. Jurors are very confused by past economic and non-economic damages and also by future earnings damages. Jurors do seem to get punitive damages and allocation of fault, for the most part, however, they tend to start their discussion around allocation of fault, which is not where they are instructed to start. The podcast wraps up with Bill and Steve answering viewer mail about witnesses responding with "it depends",  the pros and cons of blaming the plaintiff, and advantages of a mock trial with deliberations with fewer jurors vs. individual surveys of a much larger sample. Watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/50F

This week's guest is Charles Price who manages litigation for Eaton Corporation and is a professor at the University of Akron where he teaches a law school course called Winning Before Trial. Charlie and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about differences between law schools and the background behind the Winning Before Trial course, which focuses on understanding psychology, economics, statistics, accounting, neuroscience in the application of law. They also discuss the changes that have taken place over the years with trial attorneys and the challenge of getting trial experience these days, particularly for younger attorneys. Charlie shares his perspective on the differences between serving as in-house counsel vs. working for a law firm and comments on the high turnover with millennial attorneys. He describes the approach that Eaton takes to develop early career talent to address the turnover issue and how they get less experienced attorneys more exposure and opportunities to help them grow. Lastly, Charlie talks about his blog winningbeforetrial.com and Bill shares the importance of being proactive on prevention and pre-litigation planning and training. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/UiD

In this episode, Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. reviews the critical steps that need to be taken when preparing for trial. Bill shares a trial preparation to-do list which includes:

- Making a schedule and plan

- Setting up witness preparation sessions, either for the first time or refresher sessions if the trial was delayed due to Covid. Witness training (not just telling) must focus on the keys to delivering strong testimony and training on the 3 biggest mistakes made by defense witnesses during rehabilitation or direct examination: sharing too much information, volunteering information, and going too fast

- Determining what the courtroom setup will be as many courtrooms are now set up differently due to Covid 

- Voir dire and jury selection questions and plan, including the filing of a motion to use a supplemental juror questionnaire to identify sensitive topics, particularly related to, or exacerbated, by the pandemic. Bill goes through a number of sensitive topics that are crucial to address during jury selection such as mental health issues, mask mandates, financial issues, vaccinations, etc.

- Opening statement development strategy and approach, including presenting a research-supported alternative damages figure

- Closing arguments by summarizing key arguments and repeating the alternative damages number from voir dire and opening statements

Watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/hQt

In this episode, Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about the relationship between sports psychology and litigation. They discuss the concept of forcing cognition, which is a gap of time that a witness is trained to take during questioning in order to maximize cognition prior to any response. Bill and Steve share examples from sports and explain how forcing cognition addresses the biggest mistake that witnesses make, which is the speed at which they answer questions. Steve and Bill also discuss the importance of relaxation training to help address the nervousness of witnesses and another technique that sports psychologists teach: the skill of positive thinking. They talk about how critical it is for witnesses to be taught to reframe negative events and negative stimuli to prevent themselves from falling into plaintiff attorney traps or losing focus during questioning, which can lead to disastrous outcomes. To watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oCI

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. describes pre-litigation preparation and talks about the importance of investing in these tools before clients are involved in litigation. Bill shares how more and more clients are proactively evaluating, assessing, and training potential corporate representatives and expert witnesses in advance of litigation. The 30(b)(6) witness is a really important role and making sure the best representatives are selected is critical. Potential corporate representative and PMK candidates are put through an advanced neurocognitive witness training and then tested with mock deposition questioning to help clients evaluate a witness' potential and opportunities to improve before they are called to testify at deposition. This pre-litigation training is being used for corporate representatives, safety directors, physicians, and others and helps them be confident and ready in advance of litigation. Dr. Kanasky also shares his insights on the concept of double anchoring. He describes the importance of conducting jury research to test admitting liability and alternate damages figures and attacking the plaintiff's number by presenting a reasonable counter amount. Testing different figures with multiple mock juries allows you to find a number that won't be perceived by the jury as low-balling and helps you develop a strategy for how to approach presenting alternate damages figure. To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Lyd

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. team up to talk about the increased incidents of aggressiveness and violence that we are witnessing on airplanes, at airports, sporting events, and more. Steve and Bill talk about what these fights and bad behavior mean for the jury pool since the people involved in these fights are jury eligible. They discuss the psychology behind this behavior and what they are seeing in mock trials in the behavior and decision making of mock jurors since the start of Covid. They also talk about what attorneys need to be aware of during jury selection in terms of the mental health of jurors, as well as the emotional state of witnesses prior to their testimony at either deposition or trial. Steve and Bill share examples of what mistakes and assumptions defense attorneys are making about jurors and how those assumptions are hurting them in case outcomes, plus what the plaintiffs bar is doing to win more cases. Lastly, they highlight the diversity of these ever-increasing examples of bad human behavior which cut across all races, genders, age groups, geographies, occupations, etc., creating even more of a need to do a proper, scientific assessment of witnesses and jurors in your litigation. To watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/2oK

Brian Thompson, Founder of Law & Motion, joins the podcast to talk about physical fitness for attorneys and others in the legal profession. Brian is a practicing attorney who made a lifestyle change at the start of his legal career to put more of a focus on his physical fitness. He talks with Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. about the stresses of the attorney profession and how those demands make it easy to put off being healthy and physically fit and what some tips are to overcoming these obstacles. Bill has experience with clinical research on physical fitness and shares results from his dissertation on why people quit exercise programs, which is the biggest challenge with any exercise regime. The top two predictors of why people stop exercising are pain (overdoing it) and illogical, unmet expectations. Bill asks Brian to weigh in on how to address these predictors of why people stop exercising and they also talk about the necessity of a strong, healthy diet in addition to a solid exercise plan. Lastly, Brian shares his thoughts on fad diets, how to think about the gym as the practice ground for where you practice for your daily life activities, and how to make a plan for better health and physical fitness. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/LWL

Jay Blobner, Senior Safety & Risk Manager with International Transportation Services Inc., joins the podcast to speak with Steve Wood, Ph.D. about how the trucking industry has changed over the years. Jay shares a bit about his extensive experience in the transportation field and talks about the changes he has seen in the trucking industry over the years. He also gives his thoughts on what he would like to see the industry put more focus on and the biggest challenges he sees in the trucking industry. Steve and Jay talk about how important it is for defense attorneys who are working with trucking clients to know and understand the trucking and transportation industry and how investing in learning more about the industry builds their credibility and helps them during litigation. They also discuss nuclear verdicts and Jay shares what he's implemented to do more due diligence on drivers prior to hiring and what he emphasizes during onboarding and training. Lastly, Steve and Jay share their thoughts on the opportunities to better market and promote the value that truck drivers and the trucking industry deliver. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/PII

Chantal Roberts, Principal & CEO of CMR Consulting, joins the podcast to talk about litigation and the insurance industry. Chantal serves as an expert witness for claims handling standards and procedures and has a wealth of knowledge about the claims process. Chantal and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about the shortsightedness of the insurance defense industry and what the reasoning is behind how insurance companies approach litigation. They discuss how an investment earlier in the litigation process by insurance companies could manifest in significant cost savings. They talk about how claims departments adjust claims, the relationship between primary carriers and excess carriers and how they can, and should, work together and collaborate for better outcomes. Lastly, Chantal shares her perspective on the workload that adjusters manage, the burnout, and how that leads to the mishandling of files. Watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/pm4

Steve Wood, Ph.D. talks about what he's been witnessing lately with attorney presentations in mock trials and focus groups, how those attorneys are being perceived by mock jurors, and the impact that has on jurors' impressions of the attorney's credibility. Steve shares the research and insights he's collected on attorney credibility and the impact attorney credibility has on case outcomes. Persuasiveness and credibility are impacted by likeability, similarity, and physical attractiveness, plus trust. Steve offers suggestions on what younger attorneys, in particular, can do to become better and strong presenters and exude more credibility. He also talks about approachability and authoritativeness and the importance of finding the balance between the two to establish trustworthiness and credibility with jurors. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/1tM

Dr. Steve Wood joins Dr. Bill Kanasky to discuss the topic of buyer's remorse in litigation consulting. Bill shares some recent examples of clients who have invested in witness training and/or jury research, win their case or otherwise get a favorable result, but then have buyer's remorse when they get the invoice. Steve talks about the psychology of what causes that perspective, the underlying human behavior and motivation, and explains and describes "approach motivation" and "avoidance motivation". Bill and Steve talk about the disconnect between the identified need in advance of the outcome and the feeling about the decision after the fact and how these decisions are interpreted or rationalized afterwards. They also bring up the challenge in the insurance industry about how the person paying the bill (the Claims person) isn't the one who directly realizes the benefit from the favorable outcome. Claims has to fund the expense but doesn't receive the benefit when the witness training or research results in a positive outcome and this disconnect is a challenge. This buyer's remorse can be experienced by attorneys and law firms too. Lastly, Steve and Bill answer some listener questions including the difference between a focus group and a mock trial, the biggest mistakes to avoid in a mock trial, optimal number of jurors for a mock trial, and more. Watch the video version of this episode: https://bit.ly/3zEGXkE

Justin Ratley, Attorney with Munsch Hardt in Houston, TX, joins the podcast to talk about his background in military intelligence and federal law enforcement prior to going to law school to become an attorney. Justin discusses with Dr. Steve Wood how his experience in law enforcement has influenced his work as an attorney, including how he approaches interviewing witnesses at deposition and how its different than his experience in an interrogation room. Justin shares what he learned in his transition from law enforcement to a practicing attorney and how he brings extra value in his work with his clients, which include industrial companies, such as oil & gas, as well as insurance. Lastly, Justin gives his advice for younger attorneys in preparing for deposition. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/r93

Mike Bassett, Senior Partner of The Bassett Law Firm, joins the podcast to talk about his new book "The Man in the Ditch". Mike shares with Dr. Bill Kanasky what "The Ditch" is and what inspired the book, which is described as a story about undeserved privilege, unlimited potential, hard work, and hustle. A story about self-inflicted wounds, hubris, insecurity, shame, and abandonment. Mike also talks about the challenges and emotions of being a trial attorney and the opportunities that come from failure. Bill and Mike share their perspectives on Millennial attorneys and the difference in their perspectives about failure when compared to older generations. Mike tells the story of failure behind the book and how although The Ditch is a place we don't wish to end up, how it can be an opportunity for us all. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/27t

Defense attorneys Melissa Graves and Rick Joslin from Collins Einhorn Farrell join the podcast to talk with Dr. Steve Wood about trucking litigation. They discuss their approach to defending trucking cases by focusing on both the liability angle and damages. They talk about the importance of starting work on the case early with reviewing evidence and speaking to witnesses and emphasizing the criticality of an early start with their trucking clients and the insurance companies. Melissa and Rick share that the most difficult issue with defending trucking litigation cases is the scope of the damages, especially in fatalities or severe injury cases. The group also discuss how they handle negative perceptions of truck drivers and trucking companies by getting jurors to relate to the truck driver and humanizing them. Lastly, they talk about preparing witnesses for depositions, getting truck drivers prepared for Reptile questions, the benefits of videotaping the deposition practice & prep and how the perceptions of truck drivers and trucking industry can be bolstered by the role they played during the Coronavirus pandemic. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/W0D

Author and former Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley, one of the world’s most credible authorities on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, joins the podcast for the second of a two part episode to talk all about the JFK assassination. Mr. Morley is the editor of the blog JFK Facts (jfkfacts.org). 

In this episode, Morley and Dr. Bill Kanasky discuss video and audio from the day of the assassination plus Jim Garrison and the trial of Clay Shaw. They talk about if there were other threats or attempts on JFK's life before Dallas and why the withholding of documents related to the assassination continues to this day. Morley and Kanasky discuss the KGB and Soviet reaction to the assassination, origin of the term "grassy knoll", who was Jack Ruby, the single bullet theory, where is President Kennedy's brain, the CIA's files on Oswald, what remains in the files that have yet to be released, and more. Watch the video edition of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Oqd

Author and former Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley, one of the world’s most credible authorities on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, joins the podcast for the first of a two part episode to talk all about the JFK assassination. Mr. Morley is also the editor of the blog JFK Facts (jfkfacts.org) and shares his background on how, when, and why he became interested in the topic of the JFK assassination. Morley and Dr. Bill Kanasky discuss a range of topics including deeper information about Lee Harvey Oswald and answer a burning question: if Jack Ruby had not killed Oswald, would Oswald have been convicted of the assassination? The discussion concludes in part 2 (Episode #82). Watch the video edition of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/eHS

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discuss the litigation risks and dangers for companies that make statements like "Safety is our top priority." Steve and Bill talk about how and why that seemingly innocuous statement is neither true nor accurate and how the plaintiff's bar has successfully used this type of language against companies and witnesses to great success. Bill provides a real-life example of this safety priority example, the obvious dangers due to the language, and how it raises the legal bar when phrases like "safety is our top priority" are used. The unrealistic burden created by this type of language cannot be managed in most circumstances so the specific language, words, and context used is critical. Steve and Bill share how safety should be positioned within a company's messaging and how it is not in a client's best interest to stack rank priorities, particularly safety. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/5MA

Kellie Howard-Goudy, Attorney with Collins Einhorn Farrell, joins the podcast to talk about strategies for settlement negotiations. Since over 95% of cases settle, honing the skills and process to manage settlement negotiations is a critical skill for litigators. Kellie shares her strategy for settlement negotiations with Dr. Steve Wood including developing a risk/benefit analysis. Communication with the client is also key to the settlement strategy as it is important to consistently remind your client about the definition of a win. Kellie also talks about how critical it is to know the strengths and weaknesses of your case and the opposing counsel's case, as well as knowing what your case is worth, in advance of entering into settlement negotiations. Lastly, Kellie and Steve discuss the impact of Covid on settlement negotiations and the expected volume of settlements, the importance of doing jury research and working up a case as if it will go to trial and not assuming your case is going to resolve. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/7aE

Steven Bryan, CEO and Doug Marcello, Chief Legal Officer, of Bluewire join the podcast to talk about their new company that uses software to help trucking companies identify reputational vulnerabilities in the defense of their litigation. Steven provides some background on how the company came about and their areas of focus. Bluewire has identified reputation as a key contributor to nuclear verdicts and Steven and Doug share how leveraging technology, data, and a network of experts helps give the trucking industry the tools to defend themselves against Reptile and nuclear verdicts. They also discuss the Motor Carrier Reputation Survey on their website and how trucking companies and insurance carriers can participate and benefit.

Doug and Steve talk about the importance of information exchange and educational programs within their network of trucking companies and how addressing vulnerabilities ahead of time is useful for underwriters and excess carriers who are looking for ways to reduce their reputational risks in litigation. The group also highlights how this technology and data can help reduce nuclear settlements by resolving cases early through early identification of vulnerabilities.

Lastly, Steve, Doug, and Bill discuss the exposure created by internal company documentation about safety that paint trucking companies into a corner and how they would benefit immensely from a proactive review of all company materials to identify and address these vulnerabilities, which are potential attack opportunities for plaintiff attorneys. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/b5q

Sean Murphy, Practice Leader, CSI Critical Communications joins Dr. Steve Wood to talk about the myth that safety is the top priority for most businesses. Many company communications, mission statements, and handbooks default to stating that the safety of their employees/customers/shareholders/community is the foremost priority of their business, but this unnecessarily blanket claim can create potential litigation issues in the future. And this issue has become even more pervasive since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic. 

Sean and Steve discuss the importance of companies aligning their crisis communications with their litigation strategy and understanding the potential legal ramifications of a seemingly innocuous public statement. They specifically discuss the myth about "Safety being the top priority" for a company and how, when Covid hit, many companies sent out messages that stated that the safety of their customers and employees and communities  was their top priority, but how safety should be communicated as A priority but not THE top priority. Sean explains how the messaging and positioning of the concept of safety should be handled and how, now that companies are deciding to bring employees back into the office, opening up their businesses/stores, etc., how they should craft their messaging to limit future litigation risk and exposure. 

Sean and Steve discuss the importance of doing research to figure out what messaging will resonate with your target audience, plus crafting messaging that doesn't box you in in the future. They also talk about using messaging that is specific to what the business is doing to address the specifics of the crisis situation they find themselves in, rather than simply defaulting to the headline of "safety is our top priority". Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/N2V

Our guest for this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast is Punam Kaji, Assistant General Counsel for Ben E. Keith. Punam is focused on employment and litigation matters for the company and is the 2021 winner of the Outstanding Young Lawyer Award of Tarrant County (TX) Young Lawyers Association. She shares with Dr. Steve Wood some of her background as a young attorney and how her experience has benefited from working in a law firm as well as in-house. 

Punam talks about how young attorneys can help their firm's litigators assess how strong their case is for trial, particularly by conducting witness interviews early in the case. Young attorneys can also gain great experience by helping to work up the details of a case. They can make themselves valuable in managing the case by knowing all of the details of the case, understanding the case inside and out and looking at the case from the opposing side's standpoint to bring that perspective to the trial team. 

Punam also emphasizes the importance of young attorneys learning about the business of their clients, how they operate, their culture, vocabulary, etc. and how valuable that knowledge can be when working with their clients. Lastly, she shares her thoughts on how young attorneys can build a book of business and the importance of the critical step of asking for the work. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/p3X

A special episode for the 75th edition of The Litigation Psychology Podcast. Dr. Bill Kanasky answers questions that have come in from podcast viewers and listeners. The questions asked and answered:

- Should I do my mock trial in the actual venue of the lawsuit?
- How should I handle confidentiality and do you recommend using real names in the mock trial?
- My witness is not responding back to me. What do I do?
- I started my opening statement with the company commercial to humanize my client, but I got hit with a nuclear verdict. Why did my approach backfire?
- My witness won't shut up during prep and is trying to win the case in the deposition - how do I stop this?
- My witness speaks very little English - what is the best way to conduct witness prep with a translator?
- Are jurors angry in the post-Covid era?

Listen to this episode to hear Dr. Kanasky's answers to these questions. Have your own questions? Send them to [email protected].  Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/d5v

Attorney Matt LaBeau with Collins Einhorn Farrell joins Dr. Steve Wood to discuss preparing emotional witnesses for deposition. Matt talks about the different types of emotions that witnesses might be struggling with (sadness, anger, nervousness) and how important it is to identify in advance if your witness may be an emotional one so that the attorney and consultant can offer the proper level of preparation and training. Matt shares some examples of emotional witnesses he has worked with where things went well, as well as the story of a challenging witness whose testimony ended up sinking the case. Steve and Matt give examples of depositions where the emotional witness gets themselves into situations where the attorney can't do much to help and how that can be avoided with advance preparation and training. They also touch on Reptile and the impact of Reptile plaintiff tricks, plus difficult witnesses who won't meet with the attorneys and how to find ways to work with those types of witnesses. Matt shares the approach he uses when identifying an emotional witness including determining what their emotions are, how he meets and talks to them to make a connection, how he takes time to explain the process and help them understand how to deal with opposing counsel, etc. Lastly, Matt and Dr. Wood discuss the challenges of Zoom depositions and managing the witness's needs in a virtual setting and the impact of cases related to Covid deaths and the challenge of witnesses for those types of cases. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/mL4

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky talks about preventing nuclear settlements at deposition by doing a better job of managing the cognitive fatigue of witnesses during deposition testimony. Scientific evidence makes clear that witnesses begin to fatigue mentally at around the 35-minute mark, so the "take a break once per hour" philosophy of most attorneys is a major strategic mistake.

Dr. Kanasky highlights the key factors that contribute to cognitive fatigue:

• negative reinforcement (plaintiff attorney wearing down the witness);

• virtual testimony (virtual sessions can be more draining than live);

• reptile (reptile questioning is challenging to navigate and it takes a lot of mental energy from the witness to deal with reptile deposition questioning);

• stress of the litigation itself (fear, anxiety, irrational thoughts, etc.);

• litigation guilt and sorrow (witness's guilt about negative outcomes);

• corporate representatives who have a higher level of burden on their testimony than standard fact witnesses;

• personal issues not related to the litigation (divorce, family issues, financial problems, substance abuse issues, etc.)

All cognitive fatigue issues are preventable. The ways to prevent cognitive fatigue is by properly assessing the mental state of your witnesses well in advance of deposition preparation, providing your witnesses with the appropriate level of neurocognitive training so they are fully prepared for the stress of deposition, identifying the right break schedule for the witness based on their personal situation, and being aware of the pace of the interaction to adjust the breaks accordingly.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/g8g

Eric Miersma, Attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes, and a former commercial truck driver, joins the podcast to discuss both trucking and construction litigation. Eric compares and contrasts the two different types of litigation, noting that construction players often have lots of experience with litigation but with most of the smaller trucking companies that he works with, they often have much less experience with litigation. Eric and Dr. Bill Kanasky discuss witness performance at deposition and trial and how Eric approaches the witnesses he works with in order to build trust and rapport. They talk about the challenge of working with terminated employees as witnesses, as well as foreign born witnesses. In addition, Eric and Bill discuss the strategy of admitting liability and how to position this with the jury. Lastly, they touch on the new challenges of jury selection in the current world of social unrest, political turmoil, and Covid. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/xw7

May is Mental Health Awareness Month. Whitney Burkett, Associate Attorney with Anderson, Rasor & Partners, and CSI Litigation Consultant Dr. Alyssa Parker join Dr. Steve Wood to discuss mental health, and in particular the mental health of witnesses. Whitney and Alyssa discuss the importance of assessing the mental state of witnesses in advance of their preparation for testimony and understanding their overall mental health. Sometimes witnesses can be experiencing mental health stressors that go beyond the litigation which can impact their ability to avoid opposing counsel tricks and feel confident and calm for their deposition testimony. The group also talks about the importance of helping witnesses who are struggling with their mental state to understand that its okay to be having these stressful feelings and concerns and why discussing them will better prepare them for the battle of testimony. Dr. Parker provides an explanation of an amygdala hijack and the danger of the fight or flight response that is activated when the amygdala is hijacked due to emotion. Lastly, they discuss the impact of COVID on witnesses, how to prepare witnesses for virtual depositions, and the necessity of getting comfortable talking about witness' emotional well-being and mental health. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/egp

Rick Joslin, Attorney with Collins Einhorn Farrell, talks to Dr. Steve Wood about Traumatic Brain Injury cases and some of the considerations when managing these types of cases. Rick and Steve discuss the challenges in defending traumatic brain injury cases which aren't always as visible as a physical injury and how the plaintiff's bar uses neuropsychological testing in making their case. Rick shares some of the approaches he has taken to be successful in defending traumatic brain injury cases and highlights and explains the importance of obtaining specific types of records early in the process including medical records, high school records, plus EMS records and emergency department records. Lastly, Rick and Steve talk about how a diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury is derived and how well jurors understand these types of traumatic brain injury cases in order to deliberate and arrive at their verdict. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ZQB

Tim Christ, Vice President of Growth for Claimatic, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about how the insurance claims process has evolved over time. Tim provides some background on Claimatic, an intelligent decisioning software that automatically and quickly triages, routes, and assign thousands of claims in complex workflows and then shares how the claims process has evolved from highly manual to the use of more technology, albeit at a slow pace. Tim comments on how some in the insurance industry have begun to place more emphasis on improving the customer experience and the benefits to client retention and reducing churn. He talks about how some insurance companies have begun leveraging data to realize savings by speeding up payments on certain types of claims and what the concerns are with the broader use or adoption of technology by insurance companies. Lastly, Bill and Tim discuss the effects of COVID-19 on litigation and their thoughts and predictions on how companies will manage their workforces as they are able to return in-person to offices and what that means for continuing to work remotely or hybrid models, etc. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/gGw

With in-person trials beginning to ramp up again after the shutdowns caused by COVID-19, dusting off trial skills becomes important. In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky speaks to trial attorneys Paul Motz of Segal McCambridge and Georgianne Walker of May Oberfell Lorber about the art and science of cross examination. Paul and Georgianne discuss their individual philosophies around cross examination, how they make decisions about the approach they will take for cross based on the jury, and how they handle cross examination of an adverse co-defendant. Paul and Georgianne also share specific case examples and stories, talk about the role that gender might play in their cross examination strategy, how they manage cross examination of expert witnesses, and how they help their own witnesses when they are being attacked by opposing counsel. Lastly, the group discusses how they have been, and expect to, manage the physical distance Covid protocols in place when doing cross examination.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/2pj

Colleen Burke, James Hunter, and Kari Melkonian, Attorneys with Michigan law firm Collins Einhorn Farrell join Dr. Steve Wood to discuss the topic of virtual depositions. The group shares their experiences thus far with doing online depositions, including how they got started and what they've learned as best practices, plus things to watch out for. They discuss the advantages and disadvantages of preparing clients virtually and conducting depositions over Zoom and the importance of testing the technology beforehand and teaching the witness to identify and address any issues or distractions that can be dealt with in advance of the deposition day. They share how they remind deponents about the fact that these are formal proceedings, even when being done from the comfort of your own home, and what the protocols and procedures are that they need to adhere to. The panel emphasizes the importance of a good performance at deposition and how a bad deposition can result in a settlement offer being pulled or increasing exponentially. Lastly, the group weigh in on their expectations about whether jury trials would ever be conducted virtually. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/x4b.

Ellen Voie, President and CEO of the Women in Trucking Association, joins the podcast to talk with Dr. Bill Kanasky about this association she started in 2007. Ellen and Bill discuss how and why the organization began, who its members are (its not only women!) and the roles that women play in the trucking industry. Ellen shares how she attracts women to a traditionally male dominated industry by telling stories to describe the roles women can play in the industry and how they keep in touch with their members. Ellen and Bill also discuss how the association works with drivers to support their physical and mental health and managing the truck driver shortage by recruiting more women to be drivers. Watch the video edition of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/XCU

Brent Turman, Partner and Trial Attorney with Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP in Dallas, TX, joins the podcast to talk about how attorneys can draw inspiration from Kanye West in their approach to litigation. Brent uses milestones in Kanye's life and career to illustrate opportunities for litigators in how they manage cases. Brent and Dr. Steve Wood discuss four specific lessons including finding your voice, listening, using the right strategy, and pushing the envelope. This unique and interesting episode includes multiple examples and stories from both Kanye's career as well as from different cases that demonstrate how attorneys truly can be inspired by Kanye West. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/unh

Jonathan Barbee, Attorney with MoloLamken LLP, talks with Dr. Steve Wood about IP litigation. Jonathan has broad IP litigation experience working primarily on patent cases, but manages the litigation for trade secret and copyright cases as well. Jonathan and Steve discuss the approach to different types of Intellectual Property litigation and the additional challenges encountered in IP cases that go beyond other types of litigation. Since there is often a lot for jurors to understand in IP cases and many times it involved relatively complicated technology, Jonathan talks about the value of leveraging mock trials to test how to get the information across to the jury in the best way possible and not confuse the jury or make them feel like you are insulting their intelligence. Lastly, Jonathan highlights the value of expert witnesses who are really good teachers and can empathize with the jury on how complicated the technology or IP might be, as well as the difference for him between being on the plaintiff side vs the defense side in IP litigation. Watch the video edition of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/58S.

Attorney Nick Rauch with Larson King in St. Paul, Minnesota joins the podcast and talks with Dr. Bill Kanasky about his recent article in For the Defense on counter anchoring and the reverse reptile and how he has used reverse reptile in depositions. Nick explains the concepts of anchoring and counter-anchoring and shares examples to describe this psychological concept and how it influences jurors. Nick and Bill also talk about leveraging counter anchoring throughout the litigation process, not just at trial and the importance of practicing the skills to defend against reptile, plus more. Watch the video edition of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/FhP.

Well-known speaker and author Frank Ramos, Jr., Partner with Clarke Silverglate, joins the podcast to share a bit about his background and his approach to mentoring young, early career attorneys. Frank talks about his recommendations for attorneys to focus on training for both soft and hard skills and his suggestions on marketing and promoting yourself, particularly on social media. He provides his thoughts on the future of attorney training, including how the increase in virtual training will continue and improve over time. Lastly, he offers his perspective on career opportunities, how firms can address the increased turnover of associates and his advice for new law school grads on how to make decisions about offers from different firms. Watch the video version of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/vht.

Brad Hughes, trial lawyer with Clark Hill in Los Angeles, joins the podcast to talk about the differences in how he approaches a catastrophic injury case in his transportation litigation work versus a corporate matter. Dr. Bill Kanasky and Brad discuss the increasing presence of Reptile in commercial cases, the differences between preparing witnesses in trucking cases versus witnesses in commercial litigation and why Brad thinks preparing for deposition with trucking witnesses is easier than preparing corporate and 30(b)(6) witnesses. Bill and Brad also talk about cognitive fatigue in deposition, their recommendations on when breaks should be taken, how that helps the attorney and their client, what constitutes a break, and what you should do with your witness during a break. Lastly, Brad gives his perspective on virtual depositions and the importance of doing research on what the plaintiff's bar has been planning once courts open back up. Watch the video version of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Q7H

Trucking defense attorney Sophia Bernard of Lewis Brisbois in Tampa joins the podcast to talk about transportation and trucking litigation and her process on handling catastrophic cases. She discusses the difficulties of dealing with the emotion of the driver and the importance of recognizing and addressing the trauma the driver is experiencing due to the accident and having to relive it during deposition and at trial. Sophia also shares her thoughts on how to avoid creating opportunities for Reptile attorneys at deposition, life care plans, surveillance video, and the challenge with being a black female attorney in the trucking and transportation industry. Watch the video of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/gVV

Trial attorneys and partners Thomas Segars & James Weiss from Ellis | Winters join the podcast to talk with Dr. Bill Kanasky about high exposure litigation and their process to approach these cases. Tom and Jamie share the importance of getting started early and the work they do on thinking about the themes for both the defense and for opposing counsel. They emphasize the need to meet with your witnesses early, well before the deposition, and to build rapport and trust with them and to conduct early evaluations of the witnesses based on those discussions. The group also discuss the challenges of dealing with "smoking gun" bad documents and how best to manage those documents. Tom and Jamie share their philosophies on witness deposition preparation and training, especially when dealing with difficult witnesses such as former employees and their take on virtual depositions and the pros and cons. Lastly, Tom, Jamie, and Bill discuss the importance of investing in mock trials and conducting them scientifically and realistically, especially because of what's at stake. Watch the video version of the podcast here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ksi

Shareholder and defense attorney Heather Snider from Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney in Chicago joins the podcast and shares her experience with a recent 5-day Zoom bench trial, including what worked, what didn't, how technical issues and objections were handled, and more. Heather and Dr. Bill Kanasky also discuss the current and future state of virtual depositions, virtual witness trainings and possible virtual jury trials. They talk about the pending bill in Illinois that proposes starting pre-judgement interest of 9% from notice of injury and what the ramifications of that could be if signed into law. Lastly, Heather and Bill share their perspectives on Reptile theory, the increased aggressiveness of the plaintiff's bar, particularly Reptile attorneys, the importance and benefit of preparing witnesses proactively, especially 30(b)(6) witnesses for depositions and Heather shares her thoughts on the challenges of being a young, female defense attorney in today's world. Watch the video version of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/5qx.

Trial attorney Brent A. Turman from Dallas firm Bell Nunnally & Martin, LLP joins the podcast with Dr. Steve Wood to discuss the value and impact of storytelling in litigation. Brent has a fascinating background that has helped him develop his storytelling skills, which he applies to cases he works on. Brent worked on the "Fifty Shades of Grey" fan fiction royalties dispute case from a few years back and shares background on the case and how he and his team approached the case and structured their argument for trial based on the use of the classic 3 Act structure. He also talks about the importance of thinking about a theme for your case to help figure out what topics you are going to hit on during trial and how to be careful about talking down to jurors when bringing up complex issues. Watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Ry7

This episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast focuses on how the trucking and transportation industry responded to the pandemic and the impressions, attitudes, and beliefs that jurors have toward transportation and trucking companies. Dr. Steve Wood discusses research that CSI has conducted to understand jurors' views of the trucking industry in light of Covid-19 and the role these companies have played during the pandemic. Dr. Bill Kanasky and Dr. Wood also talk about the opportunities missed and the opportunities that still exist for the trucking industry to highlight the positive things they do and contributions they make to society and the benefits of bringing these things to the forefront of potential juror's minds in advance of litigation. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/pjH

Trucking defense attorney Mike Bassett joins the podcast to discuss the steps that he takes before he begins working with a witness: establishing trust, understanding their backstory, addressing their concerns and questions and establishing their state of mind. Without the proper pre-preparation, any training or witness prep you have planned will not stick. Mike and Dr. Bill Kanasky discuss the importance of understanding what is going on in people's lives; for example, their thoughts and feelings about Covid-19, about current political and social issues, etc., to identify potential mental stressors they may be dealing with before you start on witness prep for the deposition. Lastly, Mike and Bill talk about the challenges for attorneys and their staff with Covid-19, the importance of relationships, and what defense firms and insurance companies should do differently in 2021 to manage their cases. Watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/qVP

Trucking defense attorney Mark Perkins shares his personal experience with mental health and how he handles and addresses it. Mark and Bill Kanasky, Ph.D. talk about the ways the legal industry has, and has not, addressed mental health issues. They also discuss how the personal struggles that witnesses are experiencing in their daily lives, particularly in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, affect their mental health and how that can have a direct impact on their deposition testimony. Mark and Bill talk about the importance of taking the time to talk to witnesses about the litigation process and to address and alleviate their fears and concerns before they start their deposition preparation. Lastly, they discuss the challenges of confirmation bias, the necessity of quality supplemental juror questionnaires, and their thoughts on what people should do if they are experiencing mental health issues themselves. Watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/wQp

Our focus on mental health issues in litigation continues with trucking attorney Larry Hall, Shareholder with Sandberg Phoenix law firm in St. Louis, MO. Larry is the head of the transportation group and has extensive experience in trucking litigation. Larry and Dr. Bill Kanasky discuss the historically negative perception that jurors have had of the trucking industry and the opportunities that defense counsel need to take advantage of during voir dire and opening statements to bring more attention to how critical truck drivers and the transportation industry are to our daily lives, particularly during the pandemic. Larry and Bill then tackle the mental health challenges that exist in trucking litigation and the awareness we have to have when dealing with witnesses in trucking litigation. They talk about how defense counsel and their witness effectiveness consultants need to manage the mental health stressors of the truck drivers and other witnesses who are being deposed. They also discuss the importance of establishing trust with your witness before you begin any litigation specific discussion, the changes that will be needed in jury selection and voir dire when courts open back up since so much has changed due to Covid-19, and much more. Watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oFH

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Ph.D. and Alyssa Parker, Ph.D. discuss the sensitive but hugely important topic of mental health. Mental health has always been a factor in litigation but since the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, it has become broader and more critical, affecting an even larger percentage of the population. Dr. Kanasky and Dr. Parker talk about the challenges and stigma associated with mental health, the increase in mental health needs due to Covid-19, and the difficulty of accessing mental health treatment during the pandemic. They also share their expert insights on how mental health issues can impact witness testimony and case outcomes and the importance of fully evaluating the psyche of a witness with a trained psychologist prior to preparing for deposition or trial. Also covered is the need for attorneys to explain the litigation process to witnesses, and how to manage the relationship with a witness before, during, and after their deposition. Watch the video version of this podcast here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/XYh

In this week's podcast, trial attorneys Paul Motz, Shareholder, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney and Matt Moffett, Partner, Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett & Brieske, LLP, join CSI Litigation Consultants Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky to discuss the topic of attorney credibility and attorney demeanor. The group talks about the difference between plaintiff and defense attorney performance, the aggressiveness of plaintiff attorneys compared to defense attorneys, and how that aggressiveness impacts all aspects of the litigation process, not just the trial. They speak about how the plaintiff’s bar has kept the defense bar in a reactive mode, how that has helped contribute to nuclear verdicts, and what can be done about them. In addition, the group discusses how the insurance defense industry can be better prepared during litigation and how they can leverage research, data, and witness training to guide settlement negotiations and decisions, and much, much more. Watch the video version of this podcast here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/xd2

Video has become common for depositions, mediations, and witness trainings during these days of physical distancing. But appearing on video for these virtual sessions isn't the same as being in person and requires a specific approach and attention to detail to different things. Jackie Arguijo, Video Production Coordinator for Courtroom Sciences, Inc. joins the podcast to talk about best practices for video sessions including video and audio tips, your environment, lighting, how to limit distractions, testing your internet connection, and so much more. A practical session to help better manage any virtual meeting. Watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Q2L

In this episode of the Litigation Psychology Podcast, CSI Litigation Consultants Dr. Bill Kanasky, Dr. Alyssa Parker, and Dr. Steve Wood discuss virtual witness training best practices. The team talks about the advantages of conducting witness effectiveness trainings virtually since depositions are also being done remotely, as well as how they go about delivering effective witness training when they can’t be in the same room as the witness and attorneys. Additional topics discussed include their experiences with the best – and worst - physical setups for the virtual trainings, what the advantages are for virtual training and depositions over in-person, the outcomes and feedback they have received from attorneys and witnesses after their virtual witness effectiveness training and depositions, and more. Watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/kkg

Trucking attorney Doug Marcello joins the podcast to discuss trial tactics for trucking litigation cases. Doug shares the process he uses in planning his case, the importance of persuasion, and how he builds a story for the jury right from opening statement. Doug and Dr. Bill Kanasky also talk about the impact of Reptile on trucking litigation with the ubiquitous - and dangerous - challenge of the "safety is our top priority" mantra in the transportation industry and how to address this when you have clients who are actively promoting "safety" in their company's marketing materials including websites, employee manuals, vehicles, buildings, and more. Watch the video of this podcast: https://bit.ly/3lmWFsr

Rick Braun, Partner in the Detroit office of Hawkins Parnell and Young, LLP talks with CSI Litigation Consultant Dr. Steve Wood about toxic tort cases, how the media portrays these types of cases and how these portrayals impact defending toxic tort cases. They discuss the influence of pop culture, infotainment, "pseudo-science", and plaintiff attorney TV advertising on the perceptions of the jury pool and how defense attorneys need to prepare to defend against these influences. Additional topics include the importance of a credible narrative for your case, the criticality of a well-trained corporate representative and expert witnesses, and the value of focus groups and mock trial research to drive strategic decisions about your case, and more. View the video version of this podcast here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/pSN

Author, forensic engineer, and insurance industry expert Tim Christ joins the podcast to discuss forensic investigations for fraud and how his book on this topic: Becoming a World-Class Expert: The Business of Forensic Engineering came to be. Tim talks about how mediations can be used to resolve claims, what a client should look for when hiring an expert, the importance of preparing expert witnesses just like preparing fact witnesses, and how experts can be used to thwart injury claims by plaintiff, and more. To watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Uxj

CSI Litigation Consultant Dr. Steve Wood joins the podcast to discuss the causes of nuclear verdicts and the myth of social inflation. Dr. Wood and Dr. Kanasky explain the psychology behind the concept of social inflation and why it is being promoted so much. They also talk about how you can leverage early jury research and science to find out what will happen in a case, and the importance of doing this research before settlement negotiations start. Lastly, they discuss the myth of the millennial juror plus how the plaintiff's bar is doing so much more, and so much better, than the defense bar in terms of cooperation with one another and the gaps this creates. To watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/7IQ

Jason Long, Attorney with London | Amburn Attorneys at Law joins the podcast to discuss several healthcare litigation topics. Jason and Dr. Bill Kanasky talk about what the impacts of Covid-19 have been - both good and bad - on witness training, depositions, and some lessons learned thus far. They also chat about the importance of talking to healthcare professionals on how to answer questions about documentation, and setting expectations around documentation, to prevent from being trapped by reptile questions. Jason and Bill also highlight the challenges of working with nurse witnesses who, due to the circumstances of specific cases and the sympathy involved, may require emotional psychology training before testifying. They discuss the challenges of foreign-born healthcare professionals as witnesses and how to manage them, plus how things will change in jury selection and voir dire in light of Covid-19. And they conclude with their thoughts on the lack of development of younger defense attorneys and the importance of preparing them for litigating cases, especially with the plaintiff's bar so heavily investing in the development of their younger plaintiff attorneys. To watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Joo

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky is joined by Atlanta area trial attorney John E. Hall, Jr., Partner, Hall Booth Smith to discuss healthcare litigation. Bill and John talk about birth injury cases and the importance of understanding the basics of the medical aspects of the case, as well as the emotions of the family and the nurses and healthcare staff in these cases. They also discuss their perspective on giving healthcare workers the freedom to defend themselves based on the legal standard, not the medical standard, and what that means, especially in light of the emotional issues in these cases. In addition, they highlight the importance of a joint defense meeting in cases involving multiple defendants and in finding common ground; how the plaintiff's bar is driving nuclear (or aberration) verdicts; what the defense bar should be doing to train young lawyers; the power of anchoring damages and the strategy to attack damages; and the importance of early case assessment and providing a damages offer early, and more. To watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/RqS

In this podcast, CSI Litigation Consultant Dr. Bill Kanasky discusses the destructive role that emotion can play in witness deposition testimony. Emotion kills cognition and sends witnesses into a fight or fight response (the amygdala hijack). In this podcast, Dr. Kanasky shows examples of emotional witnesses and discusses how CSI's experts use neurocognitive training to prepare witnesses to stay calm during testimony, leading to better answers and better deposition testimony. To watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/DeC.

In this special edition of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Trucking Litigation Attorney Doug Marcello interviews Dr. Bill Kanasky on the subject of nuclear verdicts. They discuss the definition of a nuclear verdict and what causes a nuclear verdict to occur, including the impact of Reptile and witness testimony on nuclear verdicts. Doug and Bill also take a deep dive into the importance of using the scientific method in trial research, why hunches or previous verdicts in the venue are fraught with limitations, and why claims adjusters should leverage scientifically gathered data before writing settlement checks. They also tackle the criticality of collecting jury data via a written survey vs oral voir dire, the implications of Covid-19 and social unrest on juror perceptions, and why corporations and insurance companies need to be more aggressive and take control early, especially in light of how aggressive the plaintiff's bar continues to be. To watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/2Dj

In this episode, CSI Litigation Consultant Dr. Bill Kanasky discusses the goals of deposition testimony, while addressing the issues with "pivoting" and why its such a poor strategy. Dr. Kanasky also shares examples of poor deposition testimony along with examples of great testimony to highlight the differences and how to achieve them. To watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/A3b

Demographics (age, gender, political affiliation, occupation, etc.) are not predictive of juror behavior and decision-making. Instead, juror attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and personality traits are what most influence how jurors will evaluate a case. Understanding these deeper characteristics requires a different, more scientific approach to voir dire, particularly with jurors you will encounter post-Covid-19. This episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast describes why demographics aren't predictive, how jurors actually make decisions, and what changes you should implement in voir dire to select the best jurors for your case. To watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/8cQ.

In recent years, American politics have been highly polarized. CSI's Litigation Consultants recently conducted research on the extent to which jurors’ political affiliation “matters,” and illustrates why jurors’ political orientation must be considered within the context of other social and psychological factors to maximize the effectiveness of jury selection strategy.

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, CSI Litigation Consultants Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Lorie Sicafuse discuss this research and what the results mean for attorneys and their perceptions about jury selection. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast welcomes Dale Paleschic, Managing Partner at Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Cohen in Tallahassee, FL. Dale and Dr. Bill Kanasky discuss the challenges of deposition and witness testimony of different types of healthcare professionals, including nursing staff and foreign-born physicians. Plus, they talk about why healthcare professionals, especially nurses, are so susceptible to plaintiff reptile attacks. To watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/blog/the-csi-blog-1/post/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-37-165 

The guest for this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast is Georgianne Walker, Partner at May Oberfell Lorber. Georgianne talks to us about the challenges of preparing foreign-born physician witnesses for testimony and the concerns and anxieties of some foreign-born physicians. She also discusses the challenges of working as a female attorney and her advice for younger, early career female attorneys. Bill and Georgianne also talk about preparing for a plaintiff reptile attack, the consequences of a bad deposition and the power of a well-prepared, effective deposition and testimony, plus adjustments that need to be made in voir dire due to Covid-19 and the recent social unrest. To view the video version of this podcast, click here: https://bit.ly/3fpIz6K

Dr. Bill Kanasky interviews St. Louis defense attorney Tad Eckenrode, Partner at Eckenrode-Maupin, about medical malpractice litigation, preparing doctors, physicians and healthcare professionals for testimony, and juror perceptions of healthcare workers in the COVID-19 era. To watch the video version of this podcast: https://bit.ly/336z1uZ.

This episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast highlights a topic that doesn't get very much attention: the Reptile Opening Statement. Dr. Bill Kanasky discusses how Reptile attorneys build an opening statement and how a defense attorney needs to be prepared and respond. Dr. Kanasky also provides an explanation of Primacy and Recency Effects, as well as the top miscues by defense attorneys in their opening statements. To view the video version of this podcast, click here: https://bit.ly/2XbHKbq

On this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Lorie Sicafuse and Dr. Steve Wood discuss the topic of attorney credibility. Dr. Wood has researched attorney credibility for a number of years and shares his insights on the importance of the credibility of both plaintiff and defense attorneys to jurors during the litigation process. They discuss what jurors see that makes them believe that an attorney is or is not credible, what factors they like and don't like to see from an attorney, and what attorneys can do to be seen as more credible by jurors.  

This video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features Dr. Bill Kanasky and Dr. George Speckart discussing the hot topic of nuclear verdicts and nuclear settlements. Dr. Kanasky and Dr. Speckart wrote an extensive article on the nuclear verdict phenomenon and talk about their insights and analysis. To watch the video of this podcast: https://bit.ly/2zmCuJk.

Mike Bassett, Senior Partner, The Bassett Firm in Dallas, TX joins The Litigation Psychology Podcast to discuss a number of topics in trucking litigation including the challenges with preparing truck drivers for testimony, how to manage the relationship with drivers and the on-going problem of nuclear verdicts. In addition, Mike shares his thoughts on what the industry can do to prevent these nuclear verdicts, including going on the offensive and not always play defense, and communicating more within the defense bar. Mike also gives his thoughts on anchoring, plaintiff's bar advertising against the trucking industry and continuing dangers of Reptile attacks. To watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/9Ip.

Trucking Attorney Mark Perkins of Perkins and Associates joins this video edition of The Litigation Psychology Podcast to discuss jury selection for trucking defense in light of catastrophic events in Louisiana such Hurricanes Katrina and Hurricane Rita, the BP Oil Spill and now COVID-19! To watch the video of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/vYe

On this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky is joined by attorneys Steve Fleischman and Rob Wright of Horvitz & Levy to discuss a topic that doesn't get much attention: Reptile Theory and its impact during the appellate process. Steve and Rob are experts on this topic and offer their insights on how reptile affects their work with clients and in court. 

A very special guest joins The Litigation Psychology Podcast - DeMaurice Smith, Executive Director of the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA). De Smith discusses how NFL players are coping with COVID-19, his extensive experience as a trial attorney, including the art of storytelling in front of a jury and the importance of crisp, effective witness testimony at trial. De also describes the challenges of running a major professional sports players association, the role of sports in helping to address and solve societal issues in the country, his thoughts on a minor league for professional football, and much more. An entertaining and enlightening discussion! To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/8Xv.

In this video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky gives an overview of what occurs when a witness "loses their mind" during testimony and what can be done to prevent these meltdowns. Witnesses are particularly vulnerable to plaintiff reptile attacks which prey on witnesses that have not been trained effectively to avoid these traps through advanced neuro-cognitive training. To watch the video version of this podcast: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/mDt

This video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features an interview with Doug Marcello, Trial Attorney, Marcello & Kivisto. Doug and Dr. Bill Kanasky discuss numerous topics around trucking and transportation litigation including the challenges of preparing witnesses for testimony, particularly truck drivers and the ever-increasing nuclear verdicts and nuclear settlements,. They also discuss the implications on litigation of the increased use of technology in the industry, the ever-present reptile in trucking litigation and their views on plaintiff bar advertising targeting the trucking and transportation industry. To watch the video of this podcast: https://bit.ly/2XmUQll.

This video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features an interview with Liz Skane, Partner with Skane Wilcox. Liz and Dr. Bill Kanasky discuss the impact of COVID-19 on litigation and juries and the continued presence of reptile in litigation and its effect on nuclear verdicts. Liz and Bill also talk about the exposure companies are creating for themselves with their COVID-19 messaging, plus their experiences with CA judges. To watch the video of this podcast: https://bit.ly/3gemIAP.

This video edition of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features CSI Litigation Consultant Dr. Alyssa Parker discussing her experiences with preparing witnesses for deposition in trucking litigation. Dr. Parker also talks about the process of preparing healthcare workers for deposition, as both of these personas have specific needs and challenges that must be overcome before testimony. To view the video version of the podcast: https://bit.ly/3cR3UWd.

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky provides an introduction to the Reptile Theory and Reptile Attack. Dr. Kanasky shares background on where and how the Reptile Theory began, why its been so incredibly successful, and gives multiple examples of how witnesses fall for the Reptile tricks and traps. Also covered are how Reptile attacks can be avoided through advanced neuro-cognitive training. 

This video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features two guests: Matthew Moffett, Partner with Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett & Brieske, LLP and Dr. Lorie Sicafuse, CSI Litigation Consultant. Matt and Lorie join Dr. Bill Kanasky to discuss virtual depositions, the exposure that is being created by COVID-19 communications sent by businesses, and the on-going challenge of nuclear verdicts and settlements. They also offer their thoughts on the influence of COVID-19 on juror perceptions and how litigators will need to adjust, and the continued importance of science and rigorous research in mediation and trial preparation. 

This video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features Dr. Bill Kanasky interviewing Kurt Spengler, Partner at Wicker Smith, on topics in the trucking industry including the increase of technology in the industry and the increase in nuclear verdicts.They also discuss the lack of communication within the trucking and transportation industry and amongst the defense bar in general, the current good PR that the trucking industry is enjoying in the COVID-19 and if it will last, and the on-going challenge of reptile in trucking litigation. To watch the video version of this podcast: https://bit.ly/3gegVLE.

This video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features Sean Murphy, Practice Leader of the CSI Critical Communications team, explaining the difference between Critical Communications and PR, plus the impact that COVID-19 is having on the reputation of the trucking and transportation industry. Sean and Dr. Bill Kanasky also discuss the critical mistakes and missteps that companies are making with their COVID-19 communications, both internally and externally, and the importance of strategic communications planning. To watch the video of this podcast, click here: https://bit.ly/2LQJOzp.

This video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features Tim Yeary, Transportation Producer, with an insurance agency that specializes in the trucking industry. Tim discusses his thoughts on COVID-19 safety rule changes, nuclear verdicts in the trucking and transportation industry and the impacts of technology in trucking industry. Plus, we cover the continued presence and challenge of the reptile attack in trucking litigation, how and when to prepare for a potential reptile attack and the fact that the defense bar is not as proactive as the plaintiffs bar and the risks with that. To watch the video version of this podcast, click here: https://bit.ly/2TwqUSO.

This video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features CSI Litigation Consultant Dr. Steve Wood discussing his experiences with preparing trucking and transportation industry witnesses and the dangers of reptile attacks in trucking witness preparation. Dr. Wood also offers his insights on how juror perceptions of truck drivers and the trucking industry may shift in light of positive COVID-19 PR, what the impact is of plaintiff bar advertising in the trucking industry and the distinct advantages of engaging with a litigation psychologist before depositions occur vs. after. To watch the video of this podcast: https://bit.ly/2TuXrZr.

This episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI), is all about the art and science of jury selection. CSI Jury and Litigation Consulting experts Dr. Bill Kanasky and Dr. George Speckart discuss how rules for jury selection are drastically different across not just venues but across judges and how these differences need to be managed. They also cover some of the myths and assumptions about what makes a "plaintiff juror" or a "defense juror", the importance of a scientifically-valid supplemental juror questionnaire, how simple demographics such as political leanings aren't reliable indicators of how a juror will lean, and more.  

This episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI), features Florida-based mediation services provider Benjamin Newman. Ben discusses how the pandemic has impacted mediations and the do's and dont's of conducting mediations virtually. Ben also talks about the presence of reptile attacks in the mediation process and how healthcare providers, truck drivers, and other front-line workers are being perceived in the light of their efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To watch the video version of this episode: https://bit.ly/3g8XgwA.

This Litigation Psychology Podcast episode, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI), features Dr. Bill Kanasky and Dr. George Speckart discussing the potentially far-reaching impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on jurors and jury panels. Dr. Kanasky and Dr. Speckart compare this pandemic to other 'black swan' events from the past, talk about juror attitudes and potential changes in the COVID-19 era and the future for nuclear verdicts. Click here to watch the video version of this episode: https://bit.ly/2WPiK9W.

This episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI), features Holly Howanitz, Partner at Wicker Smith, discussing how Reptile is still thriving, what jury panels might look like in the era of Coronavirus, and the challenges of plaintiff advertising. To view the video edition of podcast click here: https://bit.ly/3g7IdDu.

This episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI), features Steve Fleischman, Partner at Horvitz & Levy, discussing the on-going threats of reptile attacks, how companies are creating exposure for themselves with their COVID-19 communications, and the challenges of juries and trials in the era of COVID-19. To watch the video of this podcast, click here: https://bit.ly/2ZiqpiU.

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, CSI Litigation Consultants Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Lorie Sicafuse discuss what the research says about how jurors' attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, and decision-making might be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. They discuss how thought processes and decision-making processes could be influenced by the COVID-19 crisis and what affect juror attitudes about Asian-Americans, as well as those on the front lines of the pandemic such as nurses, doctors, and truck drivers, might have on their evaluation of case facts. Plus, they cover what companies should be doing now in preparation for future litigation. 

In this video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, the President of DRI discusses how DRI is handling the pandemic response for their membership, as well as insights on nuclear verdicts, the challenges with battling third-party funding of plaintiff's litigation, the value of preparing witnesses for reptile attacks before depositions and the pros and cons of virtual depositions, plus an update on DRI's plans for in-person events. View the video version of the podcast here: https://bit.ly/2Lw8RI4.

John Nunnally, Partner at Ragsdale Liggett, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky to discuss litigation in the trucking and transportation industry in the era of COVID-19. Bill and John talk about how recent good PR for the trucking industry might impact juror perceptions, the challenges with preparing truck drivers and safety directors for depositions and what the jury pool might look like in a post-COVID-19 world. To watch the video of the podcast, go here: https://bit.ly/2yIBU8B

Defense attorney Bob Tyson joins Dr. Bill Kanasky for the first video episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast. Bob and Bill discuss the challenges for the defense bar with millennial attorneys, Bob's new book on Nuclear Verdicts and the impact COVID-19 may have on jury decision making. To view the video version of this podcast, visit: https://bit.ly/2AhTPDl

The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) presents a new episode on litigation in the trucking and transportation industry during the time of COVID-19. In this episode, Dr. Bill Kanasky, CSI Litigation Consultant, is joined by 30-year veteran litigation attorney Mike Bassett. Mike and Bill discuss how the trucking and transportation industry is being recognized for their contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic and how that might influence juror perceptions. They also discuss the importance of storytelling in litigation, how the trucking industry needs to be better prepared for nuclear verdicts by being proactive, how to combat a plaintiff reptile attack, and more. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) presents Episode 6! Today's episode is all about the myths of litigation psychology and litigation consulting. Dr. Bill Kanasky is joined by Dr. Steve Wood and together they discuss and address a number of commonly held beliefs and misconceptions about the practice of litigation consulting and what litigation psychology can do to benefit the litigation process. This is an insightful and unique topic which covers everything from mock trials to witness training and more. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) presents a special episode dedicated to crisis communications. In this episode we highlight the mistakes and missteps that businesses are making when communicating with customers, employees, and their communities about COVID-19. Dr. Bill Kanasky, CSI Litigation Consultant, is joined by Sean Murphy, head of the CSI Crisis and Litigation Communications team. Sean and Bill discuss how corporations are mismanaging their communications, the legal exposure they are creating for themselves - including potential reptile attacks - and how businesses should approach communicating with key stakeholders during a crisis situation. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) is pleased to share Episode 4! In this episode, which continues our series on nuclear verdicts, Dr. Bill Kanasky, CSI Litigation Consultant, is joined by defense attorney and author Robert R. Tyson, Jr. Mr. Tyson discusses his new book titled "Nuclear Verdicts - Defending Justice For All", which is the first book ever written for the defense on how to avoid runaway jury verdicts. Bill and Bob discuss how the plaintiff's bar studies and hones their craft and what the defense bar can do to better prepare for Reptile attacks and other manipulations by plaintiff's counsel to avoid nuclear verdicts. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) is pleased to share Episode 3! This episode continues our series of podcasts on nuclear verdicts. This week Dr. Bill Kanasky, CSI Litigation Consultant is joined again by special guest Dr. George Speckart, a 35 year veteran of the litigation consulting industry, to discuss the impact of witness testimony on jury decision making. Dr. Speckart and Dr. Kanasky share some great stories from their experience and how witness testimony has a direct impact on jury nuclear verdicts. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) is pleased to share Episode 2! This episode continues the series of podcasts on the hot topic of nuclear verdicts. Dr. Bill Kanasky, CSI Litigation Consultant, welcomes special guest Dr. George Speckart, a 35 year veteran of the litigation consulting industry, and a renowned expert in research methodologies, scientific data collection, and trial and jury consulting. Dr. Kanasky and Dr. Speckart discuss the history of nuclear verdicts, who's to blame, and what companies and defense attorneys can do to protect themselves from nuclear verdicts. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) is pleased to share Episode 1! This episode is the first in a series of podcasts on the hot topic of nuclear verdicts. Dr. Bill Kanasky, CSI Litigation Consultant, shares his insights on what nuclear verdicts are, why they are occurring and what the defense bar can do about them. 

This episode provides an introduction to The Litigation Psychology Podcast, presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc.