The Litigation Psychology Podcast

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 127 - Law Enforcement and Healthcare Witness Preparation

Joe Longfellow, Partner & Trial Attorney with Andrew, Crabtree, Knox & Longfellow, joins the podcast to talk about his work on civil rights defense cases primarily defending law enforcement officers, and also working with healthcare witnesses in med mal cases. Joe describes the challenges of witness prep of law enforcement and how he works with these often difficult witnesses. He also shares his approach to helping jurors understand the difference between negligence and deliberate indifference. Bill and Joe share their thoughts on preparing witnesses, the role that prior testimony plays in new litigation and how to prepare and handle, the goal of a witness at deposition, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/QHO

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 126 - Answering with ”It depends” During Testimony

Baxter Drennon, Partner with Hall Booth Smith, joins the podcast to talk about responses to Reptile Theory questions, in particular the answer of "It depends." This response can make some defense attorneys uncomfortable. Steve, Bill, and Baxter discuss the circumstances in which "It depends" is the truthful and most accurate response. They talk about the validity and comfort of a witness varying their responses and what cognitive factors are involved in the way a question is responded to. Baxter shares the approach he takes with his witnesses and the importance of identifying the purpose of the deposition as a way to manage responses. The group talk about the dangers and risks of a witness pivoting when responding to opposing counsel questions, as well as, the opportunity and considerations with a follow-up question to an "It depends" response. Lastly, Steve, Bill, and Baxter discuss the necessity of educating witnesses on the strategy of the case, for them to understand the roles of the witness and the attorney, and what jurors respond to, positively and negatively, when hearing witness testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/hLQ

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 125 - 13 Cognitive Distortions Crippling Your Witness - Part 1

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 124 - Reptile, Witnesses and Anchoring

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 - Episode 123 - Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Trial

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 122 - Summer Break and A Look Ahead

Dr. Steve Wood gives an update on The Litigation Psychology Podcast schedule for the summer and a preview of some of the topics that will be featured in new episodes when the podcast returns from a short summer break. Those topics include the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, preparing a former employee for deposition, the fallacy of the reptile brain, social influence in the courtroom, top excuses we hear for not conducting jury research, how to prepare emotional witnesses for testimony, plus many more. To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OzS

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 121 - The White Hat Movement for the Trucking Industry

Doug Marcello, Chief Legal Officer with Bluewire, joins the podcast to talk about the genesis of Bluewire and the benefits for trucking and transportation companies. Bluewire software analyzes vulnerabilities for motor carriers and provides recommendations to reduce or eliminate those vulnerabilities. It allows for a strategic, proactive response to help trucking companies avoid nuclear verdicts. Doug also talks about Bluewire Connect which is an online community limited to trucking industry individuals, trucking defense attorneys, and trucking insurance representatives. The Bluewire Connect forum allows for a free and active exchange of ideas and information between members, as well as helping them find information on resources, experts, vendors, etc. that can be of benefit to their business. Lastly, Doug and Bill discuss some of the primary sources of vulnerabilities for trucking companies, plus some of the less obvious vulnerabilities, and the importance of motor carriers having a formal crisis response plan. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oTb

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 120 - Four Lethal but Preventable Mistakes in Civil Litigation

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 119 - Defining a Defense Win

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast- Episode 118 - Evaluating Corporate Representative Candidates

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