Bill Kanasky, Jr. Ph.D. shares a comparison between two different performances by witnesses at a recent mock trial and how their deposition performance impacted jurors' perceptions of the credibility of the witnesses and jurors' views of the case. One of the witnesses gave several pivoting responses, using phrases like "Yeah, but...." many times, which the jurors found evasive and did not like. Bill talks about how to handle situations where witnesses are asked questions related to bad facts or potentially problematic information and describes a much better approach than pivoting or arguing with the questioning attorney. Bill emphasizes the importance of owning your conduct and why that's the best way to diffuse this line of questioning from opposing counsel. Lastly, Bill addresses how to help witnesses address accusatory questions without pivoting.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about what attorneys and defendants get wrong about jury research. Defense teams that follow the traditional jury research model and only conduct mock trials ignore the scientific method. If you want results you can have confidence in, you have to follow the proven scientific method. Bill describes the two biggest issues with mock trials: - conducting a mock trial as the first, and often only, research project invites a significant amount of error into your results, risking false positives and false negatives - mock trials are built on argument and persuasion and when presentations are not balanced and when the presenters for both sides are not equal in their communication skills, their persuasion skills, and their appeal to jurors, significant bias can skew the results The solution is to follow the scientific method and conduct focus groups before the mock trial. Focus groups allow the defense team to find hidden vulnerabilities and juror comprehension issues and avoid false positives and false negatives well before conducting the confirmatory research step that is the mock trial. The focus group is the necessary screening tool for litigation.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses setting proper expectations when it comes to managing litigation and the relationship between each element in litigation. For example, Bill highlights that success in trial depends on a constellation of factors, not just one element like jury selection, and that defense teams often place too much weight on a single component while neglecting others. He explains that having a consultant present for jury selection without supporting jury research is ineffective, comparing it to a surgeon operating without diagnostic scans. Meaningful jury selection requires data to build juror profiles and well-structured, insightful questions and follow-ups to extract useful responses to identify safe and risky jurors. Bill stresses that winning cases demands balance across all stages of litigation: witness training for both deposition and trial, early and iterative jury research, scientifically-based voir dire, and tested and compelling opening statements. He notes that even a perfect jury selection is useless if the attorney is delivering a poor opening statement or putting up unprepared witnesses, and that cutting corners in these areas leads to predictable losses. Instead, he urges defense teams to invest in comprehensive preparation and ongoing training to strengthen performance across the board. Lastly, Bill shares a recent example of a defense verdict that came down to witness credibility and preparation. He outlines the techniques that led to success including the witness controlling the pace, avoiding argumentative “pivoting,” and keeping testimony clear, concise, and authentic. He closes by encouraging law firms to adopt structured, science-based training for attorneys to move the needle toward more consistent defense wins.

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses confirmation bias and its destructive impact on litigation decision-making. He explains that confirmation bias — when attorneys or claims professionals interpret case facts in ways that support their preexisting beliefs — is one of the most dangerous cognitive traps in civil litigation. Plaintiff attorneys have recognized this risk in their own thinking and combat it through early and consistent jury research, conducting multiple focus groups throughout case development to uncover blind spots and test themes. Bill contrasts this with defense teams that often rely on gut feelings, hunches, or prior cases rather than data from the case at hand. Using a real fatality case example, he illustrates how an insurance company’s refusal to fund jury research, despite facing a potential $25 million exposure, left the defense flying blind while the plaintiff likely had extensive data on juror perceptions, themes, and damages. This imbalance, he argues, fuels nuclear verdicts and demonstrates why relying on instinct instead of evidence is so costly. To counter confirmation bias, Bill advocates for early, cost-effective jury research, even pre-suit. He emphasizes that small, exploratory focus groups can act as pilot studies that guide case strategy, discovery, witness preparation, and expert planning long before trial. By investing early in data-driven insights, defense teams can make more informed settlement decisions, reduce uncertainty, and prevent disastrous verdicts.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. breaks down two critical mistakes attorneys make in opening statements: dilution of their message and their communication frequency. Frequency refers to the attorney’s delivery dynamics - energy level, confidence, rhythm, and emotional tone - that either engages jurors or turns them off. Common problems with communication frequency include defensiveness, nervousness, over-talking, and coming across as if trying to sell something to the jury rather than telling them a compelling story. Dilution occurs when attorneys talk too long, over-explain, or defend unnecessarily, which weakens the message and causes jurors to tune out. Bill explains why less is more and that potency comes from repetition, silence, and reframing the narrative right from the start. He urges attorneys to avoid “dead zones” in the middle of openings, stay high-level (“in the clouds, not the weeds”), and let witnesses handle details later. Finally, Bill highlights the value and importance of testing openings with focus groups to gather feedback from mock jurors to help guide and fine-tune delivery, frequency, and clarity before trial.

In this episode of the Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about common missteps in litigation and explains why defense teams must “stop losing before they can start winning.” He argues that many losses stem not from case facts but from preventable mistakes, as the plaintiff’s bar continues to be proactive while the defense often remains reactive. Bill highlights three key areas for improvement: early and accurate case assessment via frequent jury research, early witness evaluation to address psychological and emotional issues, and early deposition preparation using neurocognitive remapping and systematic desensitization to ensure witnesses are protected from cognitive autopilot issues and plaintiff attacks. By eliminating these common errors, defense teams can significantly reduce the risk in their cases and position themselves for more consistent wins.

Trucking defense attorneys Shane O'Dell and Larry Hall join hosts Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. to talk through several topics in trucking and transportation litigation. They begin by discussing the devastating illegal U-turn trucking accident in Florida resulting in multiple fatalities and the political fallout due to immigration issues with the driver. The group talk about how to address this horrible accident in jury selection and how to solicit honest perspectives from jurors about the trucking industry in order to identify biased jurors. Next the group discuss the need for the defense to be less reactive and to become more proactive and how to help clients see the value in starting early. Shane and Larry talk about the benefits of conducting early jury research, even pre-suit, and how finding hidden and unexpected vulnerabilities early is incredibly valuable in figuring out how to handle the claim or case. They also share how jury research is highly useful in protecting the defense team from confirmation biases that may be clouding their perspective on the case. Lastly, the group discuss the complexities in litigation when there are multiple defendants, how the attorneys manage co-defendants, and the best ways to conduct jury research when you have co-defendants.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. discuss the most common mistakes attorneys make during litigation touching on jury research, voir dire, direct examination, openings, and closings. Bill and Steve stress that in jury research, confirmation bias is a major pitfall and attorneys often dismiss unfavorable results instead of using them to prepare for trial. They also highlight how waiting too long to conduct research is another mistake, as early testing reveals vulnerabilities before they become entrenched. In voir dire, many attorneys aren't vulnerable with jurors and also don't go deep enough with their questioning. Bill and Steve argue that opening up personally with jurors and going deeper on their responses helps identify problematic jurors and builds credibility. On direct examination, they caution against long, unfocused testimony, irrelevant background questions, and overly broad prompts that cause witnesses to ramble. Openings should avoid lengthy introductions and dense slide decks, instead focusing on clear, simple storytelling that doesn’t overload jurors cognitively. Lastly, in closing arguments, they remind defense counsel that the goal is not to change minds but to equip favorable jurors with tools for deliberations.

In this episode, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. is joined by attorneys Johan Flynn and Kevin Greene to discuss their recent nine-week asbestos trial in California that resulted in a major defense verdict. Johan and Kevin describe how they incorporated CSI’s disruptive voir dire techniques into their jury selection strategy, using them to identify unfavorable jurors, plant seeds on critical defense themes, and introduce concepts such as anchoring early in the process. They also share insights on trial strategy, including coordinating with co-defendants, refining opening slides after judicial rulings, and carefully managing cross-examinations. Both emphasize the importance of adapting to surprises during trial and managing their mental and physical health during a lengthy trial. Johan and Kevin credit their success in this trial to the disruptive voir dire approach, which helped them connect with the jurors in a meaningful way, and highlighted how psychological techniques in voir dire can carry through to closing, reactivating juror commitments made during jury selection and directly influencing the final verdict.

Trucking defense attorney Doug Marcello joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the latest in trucking litigation. Doug provides a “state of the union” update on where the industry has been, where it is now, and where it needs to go. They address recent tort reform efforts in states like Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina, and the importance of leveraging those reforms effectively. An important point that Doug and Bill highlight is the continued lack of collaboration among defense attorneys compared to the highly coordinated plaintiff’s bar, which continues to share strategies nationwide.Doug and Bill emphasize the need for defense teams to be more proactive, from filing first to secure favorable jurisdictions, to preparing witnesses early, and by using focus groups early to test case themes, witness credibility, and damages strategies before mediation. They highlight the benefits of repeated testing and retesting to refine approaches, rather than relying on gut instincts or past case experience.The discussion also covers the importance of simple, compelling storytelling in openings and closings, counter-anchoring damages with reasonable and well-justified numbers, and making strategic concessions to build credibility with jurors. Doug and Bill stress that winning doesn’t always mean a defense verdict — reasonable settlements and mitigation of liability and damages can be victories when approached the right way.Finally, they analyze the Texas Supreme Court’s Warner decision, which reaffirmed the necessity of proximate cause in negligence cases and rejected the idea that simply being present at the scene is enough for liability. Both agree that the ruling provides clarity and is a positive outcome for the trucking industry.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the role of juror beliefs and attitudes in voir dire and why they must be treated as distinct concepts. Beliefs are what jurors think (cognitive), while attitudes are how they feel (emotional). Bill emphasizes that while many attorneys stop at/after belief-based questions, it’s the follow-up attitude questions that reveal the real risk, since emotions ultimately drive juror decision-making. Bill gives an example of the sequence: start with belief questions such as “Do you think corporations put profits over safety?” and then follow up with attitude questions like “How do you feel about that?” Two jurors may share the same belief but have very different emotional reactions with one seeing it as a natural part of capitalism, while another may express deep distrust. That emotional distinction - the 'why' behind the belief - is where attorneys uncover risky jurors. Bill stresses that attorneys must not be afraid of uncovering negative emotions. In fact, identifying jurors with strong negative attitudes provides valuable opportunities to uncover additional risky jurors by asking who else feels the same way. Help make it easier for jurors to strike themselves. He advises attorneys to normalize negative responses, encourage openness, and use follow-ups, including multiple-choice options, to make it easier for jurors to express themselves. Ultimately, he argues that separating beliefs from attitudes and digging into emotional responses is the key to identifying and striking high-risk jurors.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. is joined by trial attorney Jeremiah Byrne of Frost Brown Todd LLC to break down a recent case that resulted in a defense verdict. Jeremiah begins with an overview of the facts, explaining the allegations against the defendant and the damages sought by the plaintiff. He describes the mediation process, the plaintiff’s settlement demands, and why the case proceeded to trial. Next, Steve and Jeremiah discuss jury selection strategy, including how Jeremiah identified potential pro-defense and pro-plaintiff jurors, developed voir dire questions, and approached strikes. He and Steve walk through key themes from opening statements, how the defense framed the case, and how the plaintiff attempted to appeal to jurors emotionally. Jeremiah details his approach to cross-examination, particularly how he addressed damaging testimony and undermined the plaintiff’s key witnesses. He explains the role of expert testimony in supporting the defense narrative and how his team handled unexpected developments during trial. Lastly, Jeremiah shares how the jury reacted, the factors that he believes led to the defense win, and his client’s reaction to the verdict.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to answer recent podcast viewer and listener mail. • In voir dire, should defense counsel ask jurors about their AI use and habits? • The judge has only given both sides, three to five questions, max, in jury selection. What do I do? • How can you manage judge conducted voir dire? • How do I counter-anchor in my opening statement if the plaintiff attorney doesn’t give a specific number but they just say that they want a large amount from the jurors? • What are the updates on how the plaintiffs bar is using social media to change and improve their ambulance chasing stigma?

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. dives into an often overlooked but critical aspect of witness testimony: behavior. He explains that body language and facial expression are the first things jurors process when evaluating a witness on video, and they play a major role in shaping perceptions of credibility, likability, and trustworthiness. Bill urges attorneys to coach their witnesses to maintain “job interview” demeanor — sitting upright, hands in front, and wearing a neutral, professional facial expression throughout the course of the entire deposition. Bill emphasizes the importance of behavioral feedback during prep, not just strategic or content-based feedback. Emotional responses, especially under pressure, tend to surface first in posture and facial expression. Signs of stress, fatigue, or cognitive overload like slumping, shifting, or tense expressions can signal vulnerability to opposing counsel and trigger even more aggressive questioning. Bill warns that without proper training, these behavioral “tells” can escalate into full-blown fight, flight, or freeze responses from the witness, which can derail testimony, and which jurors can misinterpret as dishonesty or defensiveness. To combat this, Bill recommends incorporating systematic desensitization into witness training, especially when preparing for tough topics or bad facts. Witnesses should be repeatedly exposed to negative stimuli and learn to maintain their composure through mock questioning. He also reminds attorneys that breaks should be scheduled every 45 minutes to avoid fatigue-induced behavioral breakdowns. Professional demeanor for witnesses must be practiced and reinforced just as much as content because how a witness looks and behaves can make or break their credibility. 

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. dives into the rapidly evolving world of plaintiff attorney advertising and specifically how it's exploded on social media. While traditional ads like billboards and cheesy daytime TV spots are still around, many plaintiff firms are now taking a totally different approach online. Bill explains how these firms are using TikTok, Instagram, and X (formally Twitter) to push out videos that aren’t focused on big verdicts or settlements, but rather aimed at shaping public opinion and, ultimately, juror attitudes. Bill breaks these videos down into five key themes:1. Anti-insurance messaging, where attorneys warn viewers not to speak with or accept offers from insurance companies because “they’ll screw you”;2. Humanization of the plaintiff firm, posting behind-the-scenes office tours, staff intros, and even lighthearted content like dance videos and trivia to show they’re just regular, likable people;3. Educational content, where attorneys explain litigation terms and legal processes in simple, friendly language;4. Do’s and don’ts videos, like checklists for what to do if you’re injured or filing a claim;5. Intra-plaintiff firm competition, where attorneys differentiate themselves by claiming superior trial skills over “billboard lawyers.” Bill notes that what’s most interesting is that these videos and messages are rarely about huge payouts but instead they’re about fairness, trust, and credibility. And it’s working. Plaintiff attorneys continue to build successful practices and jurors see these videos, and consciously or not, they come into the courtroom with biases that can be hard to shake. Bill points out that the defense bar and insurance industry are completely missing from this space, leaving the messaging one-sided. Lastly, Bill asks the questions: should the defense start countering this? And should voir dire include questions about social media exposure to these types of messages? 

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