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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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. 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

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. 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