Explorez tous les épisodes du podcast The Litigation Psychology Podcast

Sarah Burton, Ph.D. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to talk about how the integration of early jury research with witness training is beneficial in developing your cases. Sarah describes the strategic advantages for deposition testimony by identifying issues in the early jury research that jurors find important. Jurors will share things they want to hear, learn, or know that witnesses will be asked about at deposition and preparing and training witnesses to provide effective responses to these critical topics is key to strong testimony. Sarah gives the example of learning in early jury research that mock jurors had concerns about the credibility of the company, which led to a higher focus on the directness and credibility of the witness during their deposition testimony. Steve and Sarah talk about how important it is to spend time in the prep to help the witness stay focused when they get frustrated or are struggling to apply the training. They share different scientifically-supported techniques they teach witnesses to help them relax and calm themselves when feeling emotional or stressed. Lastly, they talk about the use of jury research in preparation for trial and how jury research can help with developing a compelling case narrative. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/7C23JMxYvFY

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about using AI for jury research. There are several limitations in the reliability and validity associated with using big data and AI jury research. The AI analysis is only as good as the data fed into it. The AI jury research offerings that are being promoted today lack reliability and validity due to the data that it is collecting, most of which is not venue specific. In order to achieve statistical significance, the amount of data required from each individual venue is much larger than what is available today. Additionally, any AI jury research or big data studies on specific cases cannot identify juror comprehension issues, juror emotional reactions, and juror confusion nor can it replicate the juror interactions that take place in deliberations. These missing elements have a direct impact on the validity of the data collected. A larger sample is not necessarily better - sample size is not useful with artificial stimuli. Serial focus groups are a much more useful data collection tool as they address all the limitations around venue, juror comprehension, juror interaction, juror confusion and allow for a much richer, deeper discussion with jurors to understand both the what and the why behind their feedback. Watch the video of this episode: https://youtu.be/bdtiG8YGqWM

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares a couple of stories of recent attorney inquiries for litigation consulting services at the very last minute because approval was not received from the client until days before trial. When authority for litigation consulting services comes late, it limits, and sometimes even completely prevents, the services from being scheduled due to other obligations. Waiting until the eve of trial is a poor and risky strategy. Discussing litigation consulting options early and preparing well in advance of mediation and trial is critical to increasing the odds of better litigation outcomes. Watch the video of this episode: https://youtu.be/P7ChblG403c

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses the concept of sensitivity in jury research. Bill explains that the quality of the stimuli shared with participants in the research may impact the level of confidence in the research results. For example, when being able to show video footage of the incident or video of witness deposition testimony, these are high sensitivity stimuli that increase the reliability of the mock juror feedback. In contrast, if you only have written descriptions of the incident or witness deposition transcripts, the feedback from the jurors on those less sensitive stimuli will limit, to some degree, the confidence in the results. However, if you don't have video testimony or video of the incident, it does not mean you cannot still test what you do have. Making short videos of defense witnesses is a way to fill a video deposition gap. On the plaintiff side, if there's no deposition video, using social media of the plaintiff or other similar public media available can provide some useful insights from mock jurors. Gathering feedback based on the documentation you do have is still useful while recognizing that what jurors will see at trial will include stimuli that you were not able to test in the jury research. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/HoCn8-10UIg

CSI Litigation Consultant Sarah Burton, Ph.D. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss early jury research. Sarah shares details about a case in which she conducted a focus group very early in the case, while discovery was still open, to understand what jurors thought about an important piece of evidence that the defense was expecting to base their case on. And it turned out that this evidence was not important to the jurors - they understood the evidence, however, they were not persuaded by it which led the defense team to have to rethink their strategy for discovery and beyond. Early jury research can help guide and inform what the legal team focuses on that matters to jurors vs. what they may assume is important or relevant. Sarah and Steve also touch on how they handle angry witnesses. Lastly, Steve and Sarah talk about the Test/Retest focus group format and how it aids in testing whether liability should be admitted or not, testing specific pieces of evidence that may or may not come in, testing anchors and counter-anchors, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://youtu.be/MEtNtkNpKi8

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam, M.A. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to talk about jury research in highly sensitive cases, such as sexual abuse and molestation, child abuse, racially sensitive situations like police shootings, etc. Linda and Steve discuss the challenges that jurors have in evaluating the evidence in sensitive cases and how the jury research has to be approached in these types of cases. The way in which the case is presented becomes critical in cases with sensitive situations so testing how the case is framed in a focus group is critically important to understanding what may trigger jurors and to gauge their reactions to what is being presented, and how. Steve and Linda also share their experiences with how juror's beliefs, attitudes, and experiences affect their interpretation of the evidence and how those with strong perspectives can influence other jurors and those who are afraid to share their opinion are influenced by them. They also talk about how to manage juror reactions to sensitive details in these cases and the emotional toll it can take on jurors to hear, see, and discuss highly unsettling evidence and case facts. Watch the video of this episode: https://youtu.be/7kDHLUg5WGo

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about a deposition topic that doesn't get enough attention: the question sequencing in a Reptile deposition. Bill describes how the setup questions that precede the transition point to Reptile/Edge questions lull the witness's brain into a state of safety which prevents them from recognizing the subtle transition to the dangerous Reptile/Edge questions. The witness's brain becomes comfortable with the basic, simple, fact-based questions being asked and doesn't realize when the questions change from safe to risky. Most attorneys prepare their witnesses for the "standard" Reptile safety questions. What's missing is that these Reptile questions about safety are actually the secondary threat - the setup questions are the primary threat and this is what witnesses need to understand and be prepared for. Detecting the transition to the risky Reptile questions is difficult, however, with neurocognitive training, can be done. Watch the video of this episode: https://youtu.be/vNjF1kqzS8U

Sarah Burton, Ph.D. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about some do's and don'ts of jury research in medical malpractice cases.

Sarah's Don'ts:

- Don't go into a focus group expecting to predict the verdict - the purpose of focus group research is to understand how jurors interpret the evidence and what does and does not resonate

- Don't start your research with a mock trial - focus groups (exploratory research) should be the first step in jury research rather than mock trials which are confirmatory research projects

- Don't argue or advocate in a focus group - the problem when not taking a neutral approach to the presentation is it invites presenter bias

- Don't assume jurors understand what you are presenting - you must assess juror comprehension before diving into their feedback

- Don't make assumptions about how witnesses will perform - testing each of your key witnesses with jurors in a focus group is critically important

Sarah's Do's:

- Do focus on the why behind the attitudes and perspectives the jurors are sharing

- Do listen more than you talk

- Do be balanced and neutral

- Do video all witnesses at deposition to test in focus group jury research

- Do test your case early and often - apply the scientific method

Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/dT4Mh3RAXQ0

James Smith, Senior Technology Consultant with IMS Legal Strategies, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss trial tech. James describes his responsibilities as a Hot Seat operator before and during trial. James and Steve talk about the different ways that attorneys work, meeting their diverse expectations, and how he prepares for different scenarios at trial. James shares a couple of war stories from trials and also provides tips for attorneys on how to help make the process of working with Hot Seat operators as smooth and impactful as possible. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/E4LMBv2IPus

Endondist Chanelle Small, DDS joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about her experience as an expert witness on dental malpractice cases. Dr. Small describes the most common types of dental malpractice cases she sees and how she approaches the reviews that she is asked to do, particularly when there are questions about causation. She also shares a couple of stories of wild cases she has worked on as well as her experience with testifying. Lastly, Dr. Small talks about how she explains complex dental terminology and topics to jurors, the difference between working with defense attorneys and plaintiff attorneys, and answers a speed round of questions about dental health. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/zl568PD5XBE

Brad Hughes, Member at Clark Hill, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about what he's seeing in the current litigation landscape including the latest on what the plaintiff's bar is doing pre-suit, early in litigation, and at trial. The group discuss the importance of selecting the right cases to take to trial and Brad shares insights on what he has learned about how plaintiff attorneys approach their cases. Brad also offers his perspective on what the defense side gets wrong and why. Lastly, Brad, Steve, and Bill talk about the use of AI in legal. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/kZl49qlmZPo

Linda Khzam joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. for part two of their discussion on anchoring and counter-anchoring. Linda begins by talking about the focus groups CSI has been doing to test voir dire questions and also focus groups testing opening statements. Linda and Bill describe the goals for the disruptive voir dire system, the questions asked of the mock jurors to help identify the questions that work and those that don't, as well as the indoctrination that is necessary to tie voir dire to opening statements. Lastly, Linda and Bill talk about setting up the topic of anchoring and counter-anchoring in voir dire and then addressing anchoring in your opening and how to handle there and in closing.

Trial Attorney Tad Eckenrode of Eckenrode-Bauman joins Bill Kanasky, Jr, Ph.D. to talk about an article he recently authored for CLM Magazine titled "The Elephants Are Multiplying" about major issues in the insurance defense industry. Tad shares his thoughts on the challenges with the compensation model for insurance defense firms, recruiting and retaining new attorneys, issues with carriers cutting their firms' bills, the experience levels of younger attorneys, the expectations around the use of AI by insurance defense firms and the financial consequences associated with those expectations, and the shrinking population of both experienced trial attorneys and new attorneys. Tad and Bill discuss the consequences of these challenges and the current and future issues at play if these challenges are not addressed. Read Tad's CLM article here: The Elephants Are Multiplying.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. answer the latest podcast listener/viewer questions:

- How do I know when my witness is ready for their deposition?

- Are smarter witnesses more dangerous?

- What is the ideal sample size for a focus group?

- How important is likeability to credibility?

- What are the top mistakes you see in focus groups?

- Can big data predict jury outcomes?

Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/yCjnYizUN0E

CSI Litigation Consultant Erin Daugherty, Ph.D., BCBA joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about video evidence in litigation. Erin and Bill discuss how cases with video as evidence play out, whether police body cam, surveillance video, dash cam, security cam footage, etc., and how video evidence influences and affects juror perceptions about the facts of the case. They talk about what jurors expect from video footage and how their perceptions about what occurred is often influenced by what the video shows, doesn't show, what angles are available or not available, the inclusion of audio, number of cameras, etc. Erin and Bill explain the challenge, and importance, of showing mock jurors video of catastrophic injuries or fatalities, the emotional toll these types of videos can take on jurors, and why testing the reactions and emotional responses to these videos is vital. Lastly, Bill and Erin describe why the test/retest focus group model is crucial to detecting juror comprehension issues and increase the validity and reliability of the research results. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/estaY4YlOhQ

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about how to get a witness back on track when they slip up during the deposition. Since it is nearly inevitable that mistakes will be made by the witness during questioning, this must be addressed directly with the witness during the prep to help forewarn and desensitize them to when they make a cognitive mistake during the deposition. The much more difficult mistakes to overcome are emotional mistakes that witnesses make when they go into the survival responses of fight or flight. These mistakes must also be addressed directly in prep by training witnesses to recognize what their emotional triggers are, to identify them occurring in real-time, and to self-correct and/or request a break when they notice it happening. Forcing these emotional responses during the prep is the key to the witness learning how to identify and manage their reactions. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/KMhDoJtnYUo

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam, M.A. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about anchoring. Bill and Linda discuss how plaintiff attorneys approach developing their anchor and Linda shares results from several recent jury research projects where damages were discussed with mock jurors and what their reactions were to the anchors and counter-anchors. They explain the importance of testing and re-testing cases with mock jurors in focus groups in order to understand what jurors think about the figures being presented from both sides and the emotion and perspectives behind where jurors land on both the anchor and counter-anchor. Testing damages with focus groups helps legal teams be better prepared for both mediation and trial. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/eWz8WMAiCVw

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. compares focus groups in jury research to x-rays in medical evaluations. X-rays are fast, reliable, and inexpensive early tests to reveal critical, structural issues prior to more advanced testing like an MRI. Similarly, focus groups conducted early in a case can be executed quickly and inexpensively and can reveal core foundational issues and opportunities in your case prior to more advanced testing like a mock trial. Virtual focus groups are exploratory in nature and exploration is the first step in the scientific method. Once exploration is done and hidden vulnerabilities and juror comprehension issues are identified and addressed, a confirmatory research study such as a mock trial can be done.

Bill talks about scenarios where a virtual focus group may not be sufficient or what the options are when there are complicating factors at play. Exploratory virtual focus groups help guide discovery, help make better decisions for settlement and mediation, help for trial prep, and help keep up with exactly what the plaintiff's bar is doing on their cases.

Trial Attorney Tad Eckenrode of Eckenrode-Bauman joins Bill Kanasky, Jr, Ph.D. to talk about the current state of medical malpractice litigation. Bill and Tad discuss the reasons for a lack of trust in the healthcare system. They talk about questioning strategies in voir dire to identify more specifically where juror frustrations with the healthcare system stems from and the challenge with not being able to discuss insurance with jurors. Tad and Bill also discuss the challenges with medical malpractice cases in the correctional facilities space and their perspectives on the use of AI in healthcare and the risks of using AI in both the patient/provider relationship and in the legal process. Last, Bill and Tad talk about witness pivoting, the problems that occur when a witness pivots, and the problem with attorneys who encourage their witnesses to ramble and be evasive in order to keep opposing counsel from getting a clean transcript.

Brent Turman, Attorney with Munsch Hardt, and Sean Murphy, Practice Lead of CSI's Crisis Consulting services, join Steve Wood, Ph.D. to talk about the recent verdicts against Meta and Google and what the juries in those cases found. Brent compares social media platforms to tobacco companies in the fact that these platforms were developed to be addictive. Brent also talks about how the representatives of these companies performed on the witness stand and the internal documentation that these companies had that made it clear they were aware of the risks of their platforms, particularly when it comes to children. Steve, Brent, and Sean discuss the crisis communications challenges for these companies and how these lawsuits are comparable to personal injury lawsuits.

Triple board-certified legal nurse expert Marilyn McCullum, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D., to talk about her experience as an emergency room nurse expert witness. Marilyn works with attorneys on both sides to review emergency room medical records, which can be more nuanced than regular medical records. Marilyn talks about the differences between working with plaintiff and defense attorneys and her experience and philosophy for depositions. Marilyn also shares her thoughts about the ER triage process and how she manages being asked to criticize the performance and decision making of nurses and physicians. She also talks about the challenge of communication issues with the number of healthcare personnel who may be involved in ER cases. Lastly, Bill and Marilyn discuss policies and procedures, the standard of care, and the toughest cases they work on.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. defines the competence trap with witnesses. Bill shares why there is often a perception that witnesses who are highly competent in their jobs will perform really well as witnesses during testimony and why this often isn't true. He describes several reasons why some witnesses who are highly skilled in their professional positions may not make good witnesses. Bill talks about having to break down and rebuild highly accomplished witnesses in order to get them ready for success at deposition.

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam, M.A. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about illogical thought patterns of witnesses. Often witnesses have misconceptions about the litigation process or concerns about ramifications of their performance in the deposition, which need to be addressed before any prep can start. Bill and Linda share how they help witnesses open up so they can address any distracting thinking patterns that will prevent the witness from doing well in the prep and also talk about the biggest issue that they deal with which is witnesses trying to "win" the deposition. They explain why witness brains are hard-wired to certain thought patterns and how they have to ""rewire"" the brain in order to break these ingrained ways of thinking.

Paul Molinaro, M.D., J.D. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. for part 2 of their conversation about medical malpractice litigation from Paul's unique perspective as a Physician, Attorney, Mediator, and Arbitrator. Paul talks about his role as a mediator, shares his philosophy on managing mediations, and how he approaches different mediation scenarios. Paul gives examples of two types of mediations: facilitative and evaluative. Steve and Paul also talk about anchoring in mediation and the power of the "middle number." Lastly, Paul shares his recommendations and suggestions to attorneys to best prepare for mediation.

Paul Molinaro, M.D., J.D., who is a Physician, Attorney, Mediator, Arbitrator and founder of MD JD Dispute Resolution, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to share his background on his many roles and experience with medical malpractice cases. Paul and Steve discuss the standard of care, how Paul evaluates the cases that he is approached to work on, how patients and jurors judge physicians, how they perceive the standard of care and the expertise of physicians, and the role of expert witnesses in med mal cases. They also talk about the business of medicine and how that can impact patient care. Steve and Paul dive into the reactions and concerns they deal with when physicians get sued and what has changed in medical malpractice litigation over the past 20 years, particularly with the advent of AI.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. defines and describes the cognitive gap and why witnesses must protect this gap during testimony. Bill shares the brain science behind cognitive fatigue when maximizing cognition in a deposition and how a witness must be trained - not just told - how to practice and protect the cognitive gap. The training process requires teaching and practice in order to master the skills required to be successful during testimony, especially since opposing counsel's goal will be to get the witness to go faster and reduce the cognitive gap. The challenge for the witness is that the cognitive gap is uncomfortable so the witness must be neurocognitively trained to embrace the discomfort as that is the key to achieving a positive outcome in the deposition.

CSI Litigation Consultant Sarah Burton, Ph.D. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about training witnesses to prepare them for testimony. Sarah shares how she approaches getting to know witnesses before the training formally begins to help put them at ease and to evaluate their mental and emotional state.

Bill and Sarah discuss how challenging it is for witness's brains to be concise when they are so used to explaining and giving details in day-to-day life, and how they help witnesses understand the importance of brevity. They also describe how they go about giving feedback to a witness during the training, how they handle Reptile/Edge Theory questions, and the differences between training a fact witness vs. a corporate representative.

Bill and Sarah talk about how they train witnesses to accept bad facts and why witnesses have to avoid pivoting. Lastly, they explain the importance of simulating the actual deposition experience to ensure that the witness is fully prepared for manipulative tactics or other psychological tricks that the questioner may use.

Alexander Green, Partner with Lewis Brisbois, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss young attorney development and mentoring. Alexander shares his thoughts on what attorney mentorship looks like and how leaders can facilitate development opportunities for early career attorneys within their firms. Alexander also talks about how his career has benefited from having mentors, how he balances being mentored and mentoring others, and what mentees should consider when deciding who to approach for mentorship.

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to share the breakdown of a recent case and the jury research process that was used. Bill and Linda take a deep dive into the who, what, when, where, and why of Case Assessment Panels, which are virtual focus groups, and are the primary methodology for conducting exploratory jury research. Case Assessment Panels can be conducted at any stage of the litigation and can be used to explore juror insights on parties, evidence, liability, apportionment of fault, witnesses, and damages. They also discuss the importance of validity and reliability in jury research and how much they matter in the confidence and certainty around the results. Linda also describes the process that was used when mediation was not successful in this case and the jury research that was conducted in preparation for trial, including testing of opening statement and visuals to avoid missteps prior to trial.

Attorney Billy Davis of Taylor Nelson Slattery Bernard PL joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss their Law360 article on the topic of witnesses using AI for their deposition or trial testimony prep. Billy and Bill talk about how they anticipate the questions from opposing counsel at deposition about AI usage by witnesses is going to play out. Billy shares what he thinks may happen if witnesses admit to using AI in preparation for their deposition. They also discuss the exposure and issues of using AI in preparation for trial testimony and the credibility issues when this inevitably comes up during trial. Lastly, Bill and Billy highlight what attorneys need to discuss with witnesses on the topic of AI usage during litigation.

Carlos Rincon, Founding Shareholder at Rincon Law Group, P.C. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about tips and lessons learned from Carlos’s decades long career as a trial attorney. Carlos shares tips for lawyers on the topics of voir dire questions, jury research, developing a narrative, opening statements, direct and cross-examination of witnesses, demonstratives, nerves while preparing for trial, not being afraid of taking cases to trial, the value of jury research as preparation for trial, proximate cause, and anchoring.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses negative thought patterns of witnesses and how critical it is to identify and address these negative thoughts during prep. Bill shares a story about a recent witness he worked with and the process he took with this witness who was struggling with ruminating and negative thoughts. He advises attorneys to make the time to confront these emotional, negative thought patterns, to be prepared for them to resurface during prep, and to address them throughout the process until they are fully resolved because they can completely derail the witness's performance.

Chantal Roberts, Principal & CEO of CMR Consulting, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk all about insurance. Bill and Chantal discuss the all-out blitz against the insurance industry by the plaintiff's bar and the issues with policyholder's confusion and misunderstanding about insurance. They discuss the relationship between defense attorneys and adjusters and suggest how they can work better together. Bill and Chantal talk about the evolution of Reptile and the expansion of Reptile questions beyond safety and risk to other areas such as claims handling in bad faith cases and fairness in employment cases. Lastly, they discuss where things are headed in the insurance industry and the impact and future of AI in insurance.

The likeability of witnesses is a huge factor in juror evaluation and decision-making. Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the necessity of testing plaintiff likeability by getting the plaintiff deposition on video so it can be played in a focus group to get feedback on the plaintiff. Juror perception of the plaintiff is a major influencing factor in how they consider the case. Likeability of defense witnesses is important to test as well since the likeability factor applies to both sides, so understanding what jurors think about the likeability, credibility, knowledge, etc. of all witnesses is crucial. Lastly, Bill shares how to address likeability of plaintiff witnesses in voir dire in order to diffuse it as an issue during deliberations.

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about early jury research. Linda describes the format of the virtual focus group model and benefits that clients and attorneys realize from conducting these education and evaluation jury research projects. Bill and Linda discuss how focus groups differ from mock trials, and how, especially when conducted early, help identify hidden vulnerabilities in your case. They also talk about the advantages of the test/retest model in jury research and how focus groups can, in certain circumstances, be more useful for trial prep than a mock trial. Lastly, they discuss other uses of the focus group model including testing counter-anchors, damages, liability, voir dire, opening statements, and exhibits.

Mike Bassett, Trial Lawyer and Managing Partner at The Bassett Firm, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to commemorate the 300th episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast and discuss a wide range of topics about managing litigation and how things have evolved over the years. Mike shares the benefits he and his firm realize from conducting early jury research and how these early focus groups guide discovery and influence mediation. Steve, Bill, and Mike talk about the importance of validity in how jury research is conducted, the impact of confirmation bias on the legal team, and how clients need to view jury research as an investment, not simply an expense. The group also talk about attorney recruitment, attorney retention and the benefits of using Culture Index for hiring and team management. Lastly, they discuss the use of AI in legal and the criticality of briefer and tighter opening statements in today's world of short attention spans.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares recent feedback he has received from corporate and insurance clients with regards to a reluctance by some of their defense attorneys to take a different approach in how they manage their client's litigation. Some corporate and insurance clients are wanting more proactivity and aggressiveness from their counsel and are running into resistance from some, which is leaving them frustrated. Bill tells a couple of stories from recent interactions as examples of how corporate and insurance clients are thinking about the working relationship with their firms and makes suggestions about how attorneys can get better alignment with their clients on how they want their files handled.

Doug Marcello, Shareholder with Saxton & Stump and an expert in trucking litigation, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to give a state of the union on litigation in the transportation and trucking space. Doug shares what he sees as the primary issues in trucking litigation today and Bill and Doug discuss suggestions on what insurance companies and defense attorneys should do differently in managing their litigation. Doug shoots down common objections the defense side often bring up related to being proactive. He describes the benefits of conducting early jury research and talks about situations where it makes sense to proactively sue the plaintiff for an accident before they can file suit against the defendant. Bill and Doug also discuss the driver shortage challenge, managing immigrant drivers, technology, AI, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. describes the surprising connection between Meat Loaf's 1993 hit song I Would Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) and the Reptile Theory. Bill breaks down the correlation between the lyrics of this love song and the unreasonable expectations and standards that are present in Reptile questions. He explains how attorneys need to help witnesses understand that circumstances and judgment play a pivotal role when responding to classic Reptile questions in deposition.

Holly Howanitz, Managing Partner with Tyson & Mendes, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the current state of litigation in Florida after the tort reform bill H.B. 837 was passed in March 2023. Holly shares how both tort reform and the new rules of civil procedure that went into effect in January 2025 are impacting cases. The biggest change that Holly has seen is related to medical bills since whether the plaintiff had health insurance was not allowed to be discussed in court before tort reform. Bill and Holly also discuss how to handle anchoring, thoughts on medical billing experts, dealing with modified comparative negligence, eggshell plaintiffs, anchoring apportionment, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. describes what he calls the dead zone in opening statements. The dead zone is the middle part of the opening where juror attention is at its lowest. Bill lays out a 3 x 3 framework for the dead zone in the opening: 3 core issues supported by 3 high impact facts. He talks about how the opening statement should be focused on teasing and framing your case, not getting into the weeds, and letting your witnesses handle the details later. Lastly, Bill describes the concepts of dilution and repetition in opening statements.

Jim Pattillo & Todd Weston, Partners with Christian & Small, join Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about a range of topics on managing a law firm and managing litigation. The group discuss how to get younger attorneys trial experience, particularly when fewer and fewer cases are going to trial, how to manage stress, work/life balance, and healthy lifestyles while still growing a profitable firm, thoughts around voir dire, mistakes they have made while practicing law and the lessons learned, witness preparation, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. take a look back at some cases the CSI team worked on during 2025 and share stories, takeaways, and lessons learned. Bill and Steve talk about what causes witness deposition failures and why leveraging neurocognitive witness training leads to improve deposition testimony. They talk about why the work attorneys do to prep witnesses are often inadequate and why its not the attorney's fault. Bill and Steve also provide updates on recent changes in how CSI conducts jury research and how focus group research has transformed case development and strategy for attorneys. They describe the importance of validity and reliability in jury research and how conducting exploratory research like focus groups vs. confirmatory research like mock trials can significantly improve litigation management decisions. Lastly, they discuss alternatives to traditional jury selection and why a focus on voir dire questioning strategy (i.e. disruptive voir dire) and opening statement construction is much more useful than having a jury consultant sitting next to the legal team during jury selection.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. speaks about how important it is to establish trust with witnesses prior to starting any prep. Attorneys need to ask witnesses how they are doing, demonstrate that they genuinely care about their witness's mental and emotional state, and earn their trust before diving into any of the specifics of the litigation. Witnesses may have issues impacting them that are completely unrelated to the lawsuit, though those factors may directly affect how they are able to perform during prep and testimony. Identifying and addressing distractions and concerns is imperative to maximize witness prep and performance. The other key is to start this process from the first contact with the witness. Expressing genuine concern from the first interaction with the witness communicates that their well-being is paramount in the litigation process and builds trust and rapport for them with the legal team, which results in a better prep process and, ultimately, better deposition outcomes.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. answer another batch of podcast viewer and listener questions:

• When is the right time to conduct a focus group—should I wait until discovery is complete?

• Can I test my opening statement in front of staff members or family?

• Why is it important to test opening statements with mock jurors?

• Should a consultant or moderator sit inside the jury deliberation room during a mock trial?

• What are the most common trial mistakes defense attorneys make in opening statements, voir dire, and cross-examination?

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. breaks down why the single most powerful testimony tool in depositions and trial is the disciplined use of “No” or “I disagree”, followed by silence. Bill explains how witnesses get into trouble when they add explanations after a comma (“No, because…”), which leads to defensive or evasive answers and creates damaging credibility issues. Instead, he emphasizes a strategy rooted in cognitive science: reject the premise cleanly, elevate tone and composure, and force opposing counsel into an open-ended follow-up like “Why?”, which gives the witness more time to think and respond from the logical (not emotional) part of the brain.

Bill also clarifies common misconceptions about witnesses who answer with "No" appearing evasive, why jurors dislike pivoting or arguing witnesses, and how “reject and elevate” protects credibility while maintaining emotional control. He explains how witnesses can later provide explanations, during defense follow-up at deposition or rehabilitation at trial, without exposing themselves to attack when they’re under pressure.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. expands on the “disruptive voir dire” approach, focusing on how to neutralize juror confirmation bias, which is one of the most dangerous psychological forces in the courtroom, and in life. Bill explains why all humans are hardwired to make rapid, belief-driven judgments and how those cognitive shortcuts can lock jurors into the plaintiff’s narrative before the defense even begins its case.

He outlines a structured voir dire method that exposes confirmation bias directly. Bill emphasizes the importance of normalizing confirmation bias through the sharing of personal examples and guiding jurors to reflect on times when they changed their minds after learning more. By forcing jurors to engage cognitively rather than reactively, attorneys can dramatically reduce the likelihood of premature, biased conclusions. Bill closes with specific question structures and strategic sequencing that reprogram juror thinking and prevent snap judgments during trial.

In this episode, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. explains why most defense teams misuse jury research by relying solely on a single mock trial and skipping the exploratory phase required by the scientific method for validity and reliability. Bill breaks down how early focus groups are critical in revealing juror confusion, hidden vulnerabilities in your case, and dangerous misconceptions that mock trials are unable to uncover. He also emphasizes that early exploratory research can shape discovery, expert strategy, themes, and voir dire long before mediation or trial.

Bill warns that when defense teams skip this exploratory step, they enter mediation and trial preparation with major blind spots and lacking data while the plaintiff’s side often has extensive exploratory data and ammunition, which is particularly impactful with mediators. Bill closes by urging defense counsel to adopt a disciplined, phased research process that begins early with exploratory focus groups to reduce risk and improve litigation outcomes.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Linda Khzam, M.A. break down the topic of hindsight bias and its impact on juror decision-making. They explain how learning an outcome makes jurors believe it was predictable all along, leading to exaggerated foreseeability and unrealistic expectations of what defendants “should have known.”

Steve and Linda discuss how hindsight bias appears across different case types from trucking and transportation to incidents involving police officers to decades-old sexual assault and molestation cases where jurors often apply modern norms and knowledge to past events. They also highlight how technology, especially video evidence, further expands hindsight bias by giving jurors clarity and insight that defendants never had in real time.

Steve and Linda also cover counterfactual thinking (i.e., “If only they had done X”) and how plaintiffs use it to oversimplify causation. Lastly, they outline how defense counsel can confront hindsight bias during voir dire by using relatable examples and consistently reframing what was knowable in the moment rather than after the fact.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses a recurring problem in wrongful death cases: jurors’ tendency to mistakenly believe their job is to assign a monetary value to a life. Bill explains how this cognitive shortcut often leads to inflated damage awards because jurors default to emotional reasoning rather than following the legal instructions.

To prevent this, Bill emphasizes that the issue must be addressed proactively during voir dire. He outlines a process that begins with exposing the problem - acknowledging that jurors will naturally think, “How do we put a value on a life?” - and then clearly explaining that the law does not ask them to do that. Instead, jurors are asked to compensate surviving family members for measurable economic and emotional losses.

Bill walks through a step-by-step strategy for correcting this misconception: expose and normalize the cognitive shortcut, redefine the juror’s task in line with the law, and secure public, verbal pre-commitments from jurors to follow the court’s instructions. He also recommends going a step further by asking jurors to commit to keeping one another on track during deliberations.

Bill concludes by noting that this structured approach not only prevents confusion and emotional decision-making by jurors but also strengthens the defense’s position by grounding jurors in rational, law-based reasoning right from the start.