Trial attorney Shane O’Dell from Naman Howell joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to break down a recent case that resulted in a complete defense verdict. The case involved a homeowner being sued after a contractor’s assistant, hired informally from a parking lot, fell through an attic floor while replacing water heaters, sustaining serious injuries. Shane explains how initial assumptions about homeowner liability posed a major challenge, as jurors often believe that property owners are automatically responsible for any accidents on their premises. Shane and Bill walk through how narrative strategy played a crucial role in the defense. Rather than opening with a sympathetic focus on the defendant, they shifted the “cognitive lens” of the jury by starting the story from the perspective of the contractor and the assistant. This reframing emphasized poor decisions made by others, redirecting initial juror blame away from the homeowner. Shane credits this approach, along with targeted voir dire questions about juror assumptions on property liability, as key to shaping juror perception from the outset. He also discusses how medical damages were dropped last-minute by the plaintiff to focus solely on non-economic damages - a move designed to avoid anchoring jurors with a high medical figure. Shane and Bill also explore the tactical complexities faced during trial, including a non-suit of a co-defendant mid-trial and the withdrawal of damages claims just before key cross-examination, forcing rapid adjustments. Shane shares how maintaining flexibility and staying focused on the evolving trial landscape helped the defense team stay effective. Finally, the two discuss the emotional impact of a defense verdict for the client, the importance of involving young attorneys in trial work, and why mentorship, trial exposure, and civility with opposing counsel are essential for a sustainable legal career. Watch the video of this episode:  https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/X6E

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. explains how cortisol, the brain’s primary stress hormone, can significantly impair witness performance during testimony. He describes how elevated cortisol levels, produced during perceived threats, impair cognitive functions such as memory, decision-making, and emotional regulation. Bill introduces the stress-performance curve, noting that optimal performance occurs at moderate stress levels (between 4 and 6 on a 10-point scale). When cortisol levels are too high, the brain shifts from logical, prefrontal cortex functioning into survival mode, triggering fight, flight, or freeze responses.  Bill urges attorneys to monitor their witnesses closely for early signs of rising cortisol, such as changes in facial expression, posture, tone, and speech. Once stress exceeds a 7, it becomes very difficult to recover, as cortisol can remain elevated for hours and often triggers adrenaline, amplifying the problem. He emphasizes the need for proactive breaks at the first signs of stress escalation to prevent overexplaining, guessing, or emotional outbursts during deposition. To counter cortisol’s effects, Bill outlines a training protocol that includes education, skill development, and systematic desensitization. Witnesses must understand the stress response, learn to self-monitor their stress levels, and practice breathing, pacing, and positive internal dialogue. Witnesses must be neurocognitively trained to manage the foreign experience of a deposition and understand what may trigger emotional responses. Gradual exposure to emotionally triggering stimuli, such as graphic evidence or hostile questioning, helps the brain adapt and remain calm. Lastly, Bill stresses that effective witness prep must go beyond strategy and incorporate neuroscience to preserve witness credibility and performance under pressure.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/HQF

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss managing emotional and anxious witnesses during deposition prep. Drawing on her background in cognitive neuroscience and working with crime victims, Linda explains that many witnesses enter the litigation process with no understanding of what to expect, likening it to being dropped unprepared into a foreign country. She stresses the need to provide a clear roadmap, explaining logistics, roles, and expectations, to help witnesses feel grounded and prepared. A crucial aspect in witness preparation is identifying anxiety before it escalates. Linda describes signs such as rapid speech, over-explaining, or defensiveness as early indicators that a witness is becoming emotionally activated. She emphasizes the importance of mock questioning to surface these behaviors and help the attorney recognize when intervention is necessary. Witnesses are also encouraged to develop self-awareness around their “tells” and learn to pause and regulate themselves before they spiral. Sophisticated neurocognitive training teaches witnesses these tools. Linda and Steve emphasize that deposition prep must be tailored to each individual, especially those dealing with external stressors or trauma. She explains that emotional issues like guilt, fear of job loss, or personal crises can interfere with memory and decision-making during testimony. By building rapport with the witness, taking time to address personal challenges, and practicing in realistic conditions, witnesses can approach depositions with more clarity, control, and confidence.  Watch the video of the episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/euB

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. delivers a detailed lecture on the concept of neurocognitive remapping and why the human brain is not neurologically equipped for the pressures of litigation. He explains that 95% of witness errors are psychological, not legal or strategic, and that traditional attorney-led preparation often fails because it overlooks critical elements like cognition, emotion, and behavior. Neurocognitive remapping a science-based process that helps witnesses respond to high-stress litigation stimuli in a calm, logical, and strategic manner. Bill explains how the brain is evolutionarily wired for workplace and social environments, where quick responses, cooperation, and elaboration are rewarded. However, those same behaviors become liabilities in testimony. A core focus of the training is slowing down cognitive reflexes, as fast answers often lead to volunteering harmful information or falling into traps set by opposing counsel. He introduces the question-answer cycle, a temporal model showing how witnesses can control half of the deposition process through deliberate pacing - improving cognition and limiting vulnerability by reducing the number of questions the opposing attorney can ask. The remapping process includes assessing each witness’s cognitive, emotional, and communication profile, simulating real testimony pressure, and using operant conditioning through immediate feedback and reinforcement. Drawing from sports psychology, the training builds emotional regulation, focus, and mental endurance to keep witnesses functioning from the prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain where logic and impulse control reside - rather than slipping into amygdala hijack and fight-or-flight responses. Bill emphasizes this is not basic witness coaching, but a structured neurocognitive program that cultivates control, composure, and precision, ultimately producing testimony that is sharp, accurate, and resistant to tactics like the Reptile and Edge Theory.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/307

Georgianne Walker, Trial Attorney & Partner at May Oberfell Lorber, LLP, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss changes she has seen in litigation over the past couple of years. Georgianne talks about how her firm manages the volume of trial work with the logjam of trials taking place. Bill and Georgianne discuss the challenge of hiring, training, and retaining younger associates and how Georgianne's firm manages their associates and lateral hires. Georgianne shares how she works with difficult plaintiff attorneys and how she prepares witnesses for situations where opposing counsel might be acting up during their deposition. Bill and Georgianne discuss AI in legal and different ways they are seeing AI being used and not being used. Lastly, Georgianne provides a breakdown on a med mal case she recently worked on. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/CqN

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to answer some recent podcast viewer/listener mail: - How can my client get their side of their story across at deposition if you tell witnesses to not offer explanations when answering deposition questions? - How often should my witness be taking a break during a deposition? - How can I prevent my witness from getting anxious during their deposition? - If my witness is getting argumentative during questioning, how should I handle that? - My witness has gone through the training process but the trial date got moved back, do we need to do the training again? - I don't want to stress out my witness before deposition; should I tell them that we won't win or lose the case based on their testimony? - Are some witnesses just a lost cause?  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ZBS

Steve Wood, Ph.D. joins host Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about how to help witnesses navigate deposition situations where they may be thrown off by plaintiff’s counsel disorganized approach or confusing questions, whether intentionally confusing or not. Bill and Steve describe what witnesses should do and be encouraged by defense counsel to do when plaintiff's counsel asks bad or poorly worded questions. What must be avoided is your witness trying to fix opposing counsel's poorly phrased question and providing a response to that since, regardless of how the question is worded, if the witness provides any answer to what they think the question is, they are stuck with their answer. It is critical to practice asking your witnesses bad questions and help them understand how to respond when they are asked poorly worded questions. Get a scouting report on opposing counsel to know what their style is for questioning and practice asking questions of your witness with that approach so the witness is able to experience it in the prep and be prepared when it happens at the deposition. 

Larry Hall, Partner at Chartwell Law, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. to break down the process and positive outcome of a recent trial. Larry shares an overview of the case, how mediation went, and what the demands were from the plaintiff attorney. The group discusses the jury research that was conducted for this case, how the research was set up, what the legal team wanted to learn from the research, and what some of the findings were in the research, including surprises. Bill, Steve, and Larry also talk about identifying pro-plaintiff and pro-defense jurors based on the jury research and how they used the research findings to develop juror profiles, voir dire questions, and their opening statement plan. Larry then describes the process for jury selection, how they approached their strikes, and how the jury research informed both his opening statement and his closing. Lastly, Larry talks about the curveballs they experienced during trial, how his team handled them, and his client's reaction to the final verdict. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/k0J

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. concludes our 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. Bill discusses juror sympathy and commitment to following the law. Bill talks about a concept called sympathy override and gives examples of how to get jurors to open up about the concept of sympathy and whether they can maintain discipline when it comes to sympathy. You have to address the challenge that jurors will experience when their heart and head are in conflict. Next, Bill explains Pre-Commitment Theory and how to leverage public commitment from jurors to increase the likelihood of them sticking to their commitment, plus how Pre-Commitment Theory can also be used to hold each other accountable in deliberations. Verbal commitment in front of the other jurors is critical for this to work. Bill concludes by emphasizing that the key to the entire concept of this sophisticated approach to voir dire is pre-programming the juror brain and the stepwise process required to do so. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/pXC

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. continues with part 3 of our 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. In this part, Bill talks about cognitive dissonance and personal responsibility. Cognitive dissonance is defined as mental discomfort. You have to give jurors examples of when you have experienced mental discomfort so they can relate and will share their own experiences with cognitive dissonance and also so they will hold themselves and each other accountable during deliberations. Next Bill describes how to address the topic of personal responsibility and how to plant seeds on it so you prime their brain for the concept of personal responsibility. Lastly, Bill talks about the topics of sharing fault and risk awareness. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oBj

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D.'s second part of our 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. Bill talks about emotional persuasion resistance and the goal during voir dire of inoculating jurors against emotional appeals. Bill shares example questions and stories for how to inoculate jurors against emotional appeals by the opposition during trial and how to identify jurors you want to keep and which you want to strike. Bill also talks about anchoring and how to approach the concepts of anchoring, high dollar awards, counter-anchoring and social inflation, all during voir dire. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Stb

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