Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. kicks off the first of a 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. Bill lays out a highly advanced voir dire model based on behavioral science, cognitive psychology, and decision making research with a focus on cognitive fit, flexibility, and first impressions. It is critical in voir dire to build rapport with jurors to normalize differences in opinion and disclosure of information. The goal is to give jurors an easy out to strike themselves. Bill shares example questions to accomplish this and how to identify juror fit. Next, Bill talks about assessing cognitive flexibility and confirmation bias and gives examples on how to identify jurors with inflexible thinking. Lastly, Bill talks about the importance of likability, vulnerability, and relatability of the attorney and how that impacts your voir dire success and the rest of the trial. It is imperative to use personal experiences and stories to get jurors to open up, to be honest, and to trust you. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/5wH

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. continues discussing the importance of validity and reliability in jury research and specifically talks about the use of the clopening in jury research. The clopening is a combined opening and closing statement - basically a summary presentation of the case. The issue with the clopening is that it impacts your validity and reliability because jurors don't hear clopenings in a real trial so any feedback collected is skewed. Also, in order to get the most accurate data in jury research, you have to measure immediately after the presented stimulus/information. For example, if you want feedback on your opening, you must measure immediately after the delivery of the opening. If you want feedback on a witness, the measurement must come immediately after the mock jurors hear from that witness. Waiting to gather feedback until all witnesses have been shown will not provide an accurate measurement. The most scientifically sound methodology for conducting jury research is to take measurements immediately after completing delivery of each piece of content that you want feedback on. Any other process for data collection will compromise your validity.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ZBE

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. describes the scientific concepts of validity and reliability in research and why they are individually and collectively so important when conducting jury research. The question that validity helps answer is: are you measuring what you think you are measuring? Bill gives examples of how you can limit or improve your validity through witnesses and presentations in jury research. It's critically important to secure a clean read in your research and Bill explains how to achieve that.  Reliability in research refers to the consistency and repeatability of a measurement, so that if the same process is repeated under the same conditions, it should yield similar results. Having reliability in your data means you can count on the results and increases confidence in the findings to better guide decision-making on your case. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/1lp

Jim Pattillo, Partner, Christian & Small joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about different types of plaintiff attorneys. Jim and Bill discuss what the reasons are for why there has been a degradation in civility between attorneys in recent years and what can be done about it. They share how important curating a reputation is for younger attorneys and the importance of communication. Bill and Jim identify several different plaintiff attorney types and how to manage them:  - The unqualified and incompetent plaintiff attorney- The jerk, bombastic plaintiff attorney- The too busy or lazy plaintiff attorney- The unethical plaintiff attorney- The unrealistic plaintiff attorney  Lastly, Jim shares his firm's philosophy on mentoring and training younger attorneys and his advice to early career attorneys on honing their craft. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/6Em

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.

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

JFK assassination expert Jefferson Morley joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the latest updates on the JFK assassination including the recent executive order for a full and complete release of all JFK assassination records. Jefferson discusses what the FBI and CIA responses have been to the executive order, provides background on developments around digitization of some records, and his concerns about the delay of the records release since the executive order was signed. Jefferson and Bill also talk about the status of the lawsuit filed to get the JFK files released, share their thoughts on Jefferson's recent interview with Tucker Carlson, and discuss the recently surfaced audio tape that mentions LBJ's potential role in the JFK assassination. 

Bill Mitchell, Founding Partner of Cruser & Mitchell, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss deal-making and negotiation in litigation and how to be disruptive lawyer. Bill Mitchell describes his philosophy on managing litigation and how he got started taking this unconventional approach to litigation management. Bill talks about three characteristics required to operate as a disruptive lawyer: #1 - legal acumen, #2 - proactivity, #3 -  emotional intelligence. The two Bills discuss several different challenging scenarios, how Bill Mitchell addresses them, and what he recommends other attorneys doing in those situations. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Ur7

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares insights with attorneys for witness prep prior to their witness's deposition testimony. Bill emphasizes that the most important thing for witnesses is to fail during preparation in order to learn and grow so they are prepared for their deposition. This approach can be a challenge for attorneys as you don't want your witness to get mad at you or you may have concerns about hurting their confidence during the prep. It is critical for the witness to understand that their failure during preparation has value and is actually necessary in order for them to be successful during testimony. As you start your mock questioning and you observe them failing, stop and give them feedback to build awareness of their performance. How you give them feedback is very important. You have to use operant conditioning and provide both constructive and positive feedback in order to punish poor performance -  to eliminate it - and reward good behavior - to increase it. The use of these psychological principles will help you fully prepare your witness by allowing them to fail during prep and providing them with the appropriate feedback so they are ready for the real thing.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/hPR

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about the psychological concept of amygdala hijack, which is the fight or flight reaction, and whether to induce amygdala hijack in the plaintiff or plaintiff's expert at deposition. Bill discusses the considerations and situations in which defense counsel should and should not employ this approach and some ideas on how and when to do so:1) Start the deposition with a surprise such as asking about a sensitive aspect of the case and apply pressure, something that you might have originally planned to do later in the deposition. This can induce a fight or flight reaction. 2) Properly use verbal and non-verbal emotion such as tone of voice, smirks, eye rolls, etc. when not getting the answer you want and then repeating questions. Amygdala hijack (fight or flight) is a neurochemical reaction that lasts inside the witness's system for 3-5 hours and gives you a distinct advantage. 3) Use your best exhibits early and don't wait until later in the deposition.

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. joins host Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss five (5) problematic witness types. Steve and Bill talk about who these witnesses are, how to identify them, and how to work with each type of witness: 1) The overly agreeable witness - a witness who is willing to agree with everything opposing counsel says or implies; 2) The defensive witness - someone who wants to argue or won't agree with even basic facts; 3) The angry witness - a witness whose rage about many/all aspects of the litigation prevent them from working constructively with the legal team and/or who are defensive in their demeanor; 4) The apathetic witness - a witness who appears uncaring; 5) The experienced witness - a potentially arrogant witness who has prior experience with testifying and therefore may believe they know what to do and what to expect which could lead to a compromised performance during testimony.  Each witness type can potentially fall victim to fight, flight, or freeze responses. Fight is an argumentative response when a witness wants to argue and defend their actions. Flight is when the witness feels scared or triggered and responds in a way to pacify the questioner via explanations and sharing too much information. And the freeze response is when the witness simply agrees with the assertions of the questioner and doesn't want to contradict them. Effective witness training requires proper neurocognitive assessment of the witness to determine their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state and an appropriate amount of time to identify potential psychological barriers that will prevent the witness from fully understanding and embracing the training and prep so their testimony can be effective. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/O5F

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares ideas on how to upgrade your voir dire by applying measurement. One of the primary purposes of voir dire is to elicit information and Bill talks about ways to extract information from jurors to get accurate responses. Bill discusses how to handle oral questioning during voir dire, including the use of a 0-10 scale and asking jurors to give one reason for their number. After going over the scientific methodology for this approach to data collection, Bill talks about the art aspect of voir dire: the setup of the question, the answer set/options given to the jurors, and what to do with their answers. As an example, when you get negative information from a juror, you don't want to punish that juror with your reaction because you want to identify other jurors who share that same perspective so you can strike them. Reacting negatively to a juror's response could shut down other jurors who may feel the same way but want to avoid your negative reaction. Lastly, Bill talks about how to do this in Federal court or if you are really short on time. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Psf

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. answer the latest podcast listener mail:  - When doing jury research and there is a confidentiality issue, should I use real names or fake names?- Should I advocate when doing jury research? - What are the benefits of a focus group over a mock trial?- How should I handle testing evidence that may or may not come in at trial?- What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing focus groups or mock trials virtually vs. in-person?- How much should I prepare my witness with information prior to their deposition? - Do jurors make up their minds about the case right after opening statements? Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/QEX  

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. are joined by NYC trial attorney Tony Battista of Condon & Forsyth LLP in the second part of their discussion about a high profile trial they recently worked on together. The group talks about their approach for opening statements, how many drafts of the opening they had, how many versions they tested with mock jurors, and how they dealt with all of the bad stuff in their case in the opening. Tony shares his strategy for cross-examination and his philosophy on dealing with judges. Tony also discusses how he developed his closing for a 14-week trial and the group talk about how to define a win in any case. Bill, Steve, and Tony share how they maintained their mental and physical health during this lengthy trial preparation process and what some of their key takeaways were from working on this huge case. Lastly, Tony shares insights on how he gets the younger attorneys in his firm training and experience. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/VZF

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. are joined by NYC trial attorney Tony Battista of Condon & Forsyth LLP in the first of a two-part discussion on trial techniques and details on a large aviation fatality case that they recently worked on together. Tony shares his background, talks about how he approaches highly complicated cases, and how he keeps a positive perspective when experiencing difficult days during trial. Tony describes how his team responds to an aviation accident at the time of the incident and what the legal team does to address the emotions of witnesses who are processing a highly tragic situation, including how they manage challenging depositions with these witnesses. Steve shares details behind the jury research conducted for this case and the group talks about the importance of testing and re-testing strategies, themes, concepts, and other ideas that the legal team have to ensure that research-support data are driving decisions and not individual team member biases. Tony, Bill, and Steve also discuss jury selection, the research-based juror profile they developed for voir dire and the importance of sticking with the data-supported profile even when it may seem counter-intuitive to some members of the legal team. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/FR3

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

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. is joined by Associate Attorney Jeffrey Oates, Attorney Kristin Petty, and Attorney Jason Preciphs from the law firm of Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein, and Peirce. Bill's guests describe the diverse types of cases their firm works on, how their firm attracts and retains associates, and how they provide growth opportunities for their attorneys while also growing the firm. The group share how they talk to clients about getting early career attorneys in their firm the experience they need to be beneficial to the firm's clients. Bill asks the attorneys what surprised them about civil litigation when they first got involved in it and what advice what they would give to younger attorneys. The group have a discussion about artificial intelligence (AI) in legal, what their firm's philosophy is regarding AI, and how they use AI personally. Bill asks the guests how they talk with their clients about the definition of a win and how to help clients realize the benefits of working up cases earlier, particularly by using focus groups. Lastly, the group talks about how they each protect their mental and physical health and maintain a healthy work/life balance in a highly stressful environment and career. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/LfO