The Litigation Psychology Podcast (litpsych)

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

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

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

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. 

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about witness preparation and the benefits of using an alternate questioner during mock questioning. Bill shares details on how the CSI witness training program works by building a foundation based on psychology. The first phase of the training is educational and focuses on cognition, behavior, and emotion and how the brain operates in its natural state and how we need it to work during testimony. Once the psychological foundation is built, then strategy can take place, which is the second phase of the training. Bill talks about the benefits of recruiting another attorney to roleplay plaintiff's counsel during the mock questioning portion of the witness training. Bill also shares ideas about how to leverage exposure theory and operant conditioning to help guide the witness during their mock questioning and how this is easier to do if you have an alternate questioner. Lastly, Bill suggests that including younger associates or early career attorneys in the witness preparation process is good practice for them, discusses how you know if your witness is ready for their testimony, and how to handle schedule changes with depositions. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/SZ9

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. 

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about unique voir dire questions, particularly around damages, to help attorneys improve their jury selection process and to set the stage for openings. Bill gives examples of topics to ask about during voir dire that help to indoctrinate jurors. Some of the topics for questions Bill discusses: social inflation, lawsuit abuse, justice for the defense, commenting on articles/social media, anchoring, and open-ended questions. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/gYg

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Wood, Ph.D. talks about seeing more and more examples of witnesses who are fighting with opposing counsel in their deposition or at trial, motivated by a desire to get their story across. Steve covers several reasons why pivoting like this is a bad idea including: arguing with a professional arguer is foolish; jurors view witnesses who pivot or argue with opposing counsel as less credible; the questioning attorney will call the witness out on this move; most witnesses aren't experienced enough to be selective about when to fight and when not to fight, leading to potential pitfalls. Steve highlights that witnesses need to own bad facts and move on. A fact is a fact. Witnesses and their attorneys need to develop a trust and attorneys should share their strategy on how they plan to get the witness's perspectives across to the jury without the witness having to pivot to get their points out. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/bcz

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Ava Hernandez join host Steve Wood, Ph.D. for another edition of From the Trenches where they discuss recent observations and updates from jury research projects, witness trainings, and cases that the CSI team have been working on. First, they talk about how too many attorneys wait until close to trial to contact the CSI team for help with training witnesses for trial and/or jury research, or even jury selection, and the problems with waiting until the eve of trial to bring in help. They discuss the more appropriate timing to prepare witnesses for trial and why starting early is important, particularly with emotional or challenging witnesses, because of the significant time it takes for behavior change. Next, they talk about the pitfalls of having the witness's spouse present during their testimony and why the spouse should not be involved in a witness's deposition preparation nor in the courtroom. Ava shares how defense attorneys should prepare for aggressive plaintiff counsel questioning of emotional witnesses and how the training for these emotional witnesses needs to be handled during preparation. The team also discuss use of interpreters and how some witnesses for whom English is a second language sometimes request an interpreter for their deposition, however, they are fluent enough that an interpreter is not needed and actually creates a credibility issue. Lastly, the group talk about how the qualifications of an expert witness do not always translate to a strong performance during testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/PJQ

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares a list of dirty little tricks used by opposing counsel at deposition that can cause issues for witnesses who have not been trained and prepared for these devious tricks.  1. Repetition of questions (i.e., negative reinforcement)  2. Getting the witness on the Yes Train (lull the witness into an agreement pattern)   3. Using silence after a witness's answer to get the witness to share more  4. Asking for clarification on simple points   5. Being friendly (get the witness to drop their guard)  6. Appealing to the witness's ego   7. Asking the witness to help them understand a witness's answer   8. Triggering the witness to have an emotional reaction   9. Having witnesses check the box next to questions printed out on sheets of paper   10. Asking the witness personal questions, particularly about their family   11. Asking the witness a question while holding a document as if the question is on/from the document

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/a3Q

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. is joined by JFK assassination expert, journalist, and author Jefferson Morley to discuss the latest updates on the still unreleased government documents associated with the JFK assassination. Jefferson provides an overview of where things stand currently with release of JFK assassination documents, particularly with regards to the active litigation around these records' release. Bill and Jefferson compare and contrast the JFK assassination to the assassination attempts on President Reagan and President Trump. They also talk about what people may not know or realize about the JFK assassination. Lastly, Bill and Jefferson talk about the state of journalism today. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/dQe

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. 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. 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.

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

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

Bryan Falchuk, President & CEO of Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB), joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss several topics related to the insurance industry. Bryan shares some details on his background and describes what PLRB is, what they do, and the help they provide insurers/MGAs, service providers, and outside counsel. Bill and Bryan talk about current trends in the insurance industry, key issues around litigation, and Bryan describes how he used to manage litigation during his time as a Chief Claims Officer for an insurance carrier. Bryan shares his perspective on how the plaintiff's bar has increased their leverage in litigation and how players in the insurance defense industry are contributing to the current unbalanced situation.

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

Medical malpractice trial attorney Tad Eckenrode joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the latest issues they are seeing in med mal cases. Tad and Bill discuss developments they are seeing recently including the increase in the number of 7-figure med mal cases as well as more openness from defense clients on investing in jury research to understand what these cases are really worth to help inform whether they should settle or go to trial. Tad shares the value he sees in collecting insights from mock jurors early in the life of the case, particularly during discovery and especially prior to mediation, to help shape how he approaches the strategic plan for the case and to inform the mediator of what his research shows the case is really worth. Tad and Bill talk about Gen Z jurors, artificial intelligence (AI), and attracting and retaining associates and giving them experience to help them develop and learn. They also describe examples of different witness situations and the challenges with preparing witnesses in these scenarios, including working with the growing population of physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Lastly, Tad and Bill talk about the risks of witness pivoting and how to handle witnesses who come into deposition prep with a high level of anger. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/1EM

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Brent Turman, Partner and Trial Attorney with Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP in Dallas, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. on the podcast to talk about the hit series Suits and ethical issues that surface on the show. Brent gives an overview of an ethics CLE he presents referencing episodes of the show. Steve and Brent discuss how issues that occur in different episodes can inform the appropriate approach to litigation including mock trials, witnesses, ethical questions, competing loyalties, depositions, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/X66

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

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. 

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 

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

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

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.

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 bkanasky@courtroomsciences.com.  Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/d5v

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 

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

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.

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. 

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.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about something all attorneys, but particularly early career attorneys, need to keep in mind when preparing witnesses for deposition. Sometimes witnesses come into deposition preparation with some trauma which could be related to the litigation, or from other sources, that may be triggered or further exacerbated by the litigation. It's important for the attorney to build trust with witnesses and not add to this stress in how they interact with and communicate with the witness. Bill explains the concepts of exposure theory and systematic desensitization and how attorneys need to approach witnesses they are preparing. Bill shares ideas for how to handle the initial meeting and conversation with witnesses to gauge their mental state and identify how they are doing emotionally. Let them share what's on their mind. You also need to be constantly assessing how they are doing as they could be fine but then get triggered after you start going into the details of the case. And this assessment needs to happen at each subsequent meeting with the witness. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/y8H

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the biggest mistake witnesses make during testimony: guessing. Bill describes why this happens, even in light of clear direction to not guess, and how to address it. Bill talks about the attention/behavior gap which is driven by the brain's native neurocognitive wiring and explains the two categories of reasons why witnesses guess: internal and external reasons. 

Internal factors:  1. Witnesses experience shame and guilt for not knowing or not remembering something;  2. Witnesses don't want to hurt the case and/or want to win;  3. Witnesses have a fear of punishment.

External factor: Plaintiff counsel.

Lastly, Bill covers the four things your witnesses cannot say during testimony: 1. "I think..."; 2. "I believe..."; 3. "I assume..."; 4. "I probably....".

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

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

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