The Litigation Psychology Podcast

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 234 - The Danger With Witnesses Who Guess

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 233 - Don't Let Your Witnesses Fight with a Professional Fighter

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 232 - Considerations for Selecting an Expert Witness

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about how to select experts for trial testimony. One option is to pick national experts and another approach is to choose an expert who is more local to the venue. Bill walks through some important considerations when selecting an expert witness: - How much time does the expert spend testifying professionally?- How much of their income comes from testifying as an expert witness?- How effective as a witness are they in addition to being a subject matter expert?
The decision about who would make the best choice as your expert depends on a number of factors:- What do mock jurors think about professional expert witnesses? To find out, do the research to learn how much that matters to jurors. - How often does the expert testify for one side vs. the other? Jurors will have thoughts on this and you need to understand how they feel about any imbalance. 
Oftentimes jurors prefer local/regional experts, however, they have to be a good witness and their testifying performance is as important as their expertise and local presence. The combination of all these considerations (local/national; percentage of income that comes from testifying; volume of work done for one side vs. the other; etc.) is what matters to jurors. Lastly, remember that juries don't make decisions on liability or damages based solely on expert testimony.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 231 - From the Trenches - Q3 2024

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 230 - Fact or Fiction?

Paul Motz, Shareholder and Trial Attorney, at Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to dispel several myths around litigation and talk about what's fact and what's fiction. Paul and Bill discuss whether jurors hate corporations, whether the person most knowledgeable should always serve as the corporate representative, whether someone who has been deposed many times before is a good witness for subsequent depositions, whether witnesses can win the case at deposition, whether witnesses are more vulnerable during a Zoom deposition, when to prep witnesses for trial, whether the former employee is always a horrible witness, whether mock trials are superior to focus groups, and whether witnesses with tattoos or piercings have credibility issues with jurors.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 229 - Getting to Know Steve Wood, Ph.D.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. joins host Ava Hernandez to discuss his background and how he got into the litigation consulting business. Steve shares details on his education and his interest in how people make decisions which he applies to his role as a litigation consultant. Ava and Steve also talk about their fascination with how people behave and in particular how people's perspectives are influenced by their interactions with others especially within the context of the litigation process. Steve discusses the changes he has seen in litigation since he started as a litigation consultant and the aspects of litigation research that he finds the most fascinating. Lastly, Ava and Steve discuss the importance of humanity in the approach to litigation, even in an adversarial business. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/KgM

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 228 - Managing Trial Stress

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 227 - Talking About Memory with Dr. Elizabeth Loftus - Part 2

Nationally recognized and renowned memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. for the second part of their discussion about memory, where they talk about repressed memories. Dr. Loftus shares her experience working on cases where repressed memories were at the core of the case and the research she has done on repressed memories and false memories. Steve and Elizabeth discuss the ways in which she has been challenged and attacked for her research and the work she has done around repressed memories. Lastly, they talk about how Dr. Loftus acts as an investigator on the cases she works on.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 226 - Listener Mail

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 225 - Talking About Memory with Dr. Elizabeth Loftus - Part 1

Nationally recognized and renowned memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. for the first part of a two-part episode about memory. Dr. Loftus is a Distinguished Professor at University of California-Irvine and has consulted on the issue of memory for hundreds of civil and criminal cases throughout her career. Dr. Loftus shares her background on how she got into the study of memory and eyewitness memory, in particular. Dr. Loftus describes the three major stages of eyewitness memory, the malleable nature of memory, and gives examples of research studies that she has been involved with, including research on suggestions, leading questions, and semantics. Steve and Beth talk about the impact of stress on memory, the misconceptions about memory, and the types of cases that Dr. Loftus has been involved with where memory is one of the core issues, including the Martha Stewart insider trading case. Lastly, Steve and Elizabeth talk about misinformation, memory contamination, and the "I don't remember" and "I don't recall" responses of witnesses at deposition.