The Litigation Psychology Podcast

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

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 117 - Comma, Danger

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers two critical witness testimony topics: the dangers of long answers and the risks of pivoting. Long answers, which often include commas, are dangerous at deposition and at trial. At deposition, long answers from witnesses lead to the sharing of more information with opposing counsel, which leads to even more questions, and cognitive fatigue of the witness. At trial, the jury can't follow long answers and they get bored. 
Witnesses who pivot during testimony open the door to a counter attack. Pivoting just gives plaintiff's counsel more information and then testimony turns into an argument, which the witness can't win. 
Lastly, Dr. Kanasky talks about the anchor bias and how, once the anchor is set, all subsequent questions must be answered in the context of the anchor, and the only way to address this is to break down the cognitive schema in advance so witnesses don't fall for the anchor. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/T8c

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 116 - Impact of Consistent Messages on Our Perceptions

Dr. Steve Wood discusses the impact and influence that constant and consistent messaging has on us individually, and on prospective jurors. Steve explains the concept of the Mere Exposure Effect and how the more we are presented with specific topics or ideas, the more we develop thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes about those topics. He also discusses the concept of Social Proof and how our brain processes something ambiguous by following the patterns of other people's behaviors or opinions. Lastly, Steve discusses what can be done to counter specific messaging, particularly as it relates to plaintiff trucking and transportation advertising. A counter offensive is critical since these negative messages are directly influencing the prospective jury pool. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/8Jz

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 115 - The Witness Game Plan

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. lays out what the game plan should be for witnesses before and during testimony. Bill talks about what attorneys need to be doing with witnesses the 24 hours before testimony, the four key things witnesses need to be coached and trained on as part of their preparation, and what witnesses should do during breaks in testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/WIn

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 114 - Breaking Down a Successful Defense Verdict

James Feeney, Member, Dykama joins Dr. Steve Wood to discuss a recent defense verdict in a traumatic brain injury case. The plaintiff was injured in an vehicular accident and sued the automobile manufacturer for product liability. Jim provides details on how the defense for the case was constructed, what research was done with mock jurors, and the value of testing different combinations of evidence, themes, messaging, etc. in mock trials to help guide trial strategy. Jim also shares his philosophy on offering up alternate damage figures. Lastly, Jim tried this case recently so he also provides his perspective on jury selection and conducting voir dire with Covid restrictions and the challenges of trying a case with a socially distanced jury. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/kPp

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 113 - 5 Common Focus Group Mistakes

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers five common mistakes being made when conducting focus groups, the consequences of these mistakes, and what adjustments should be made:
1) too much information on slides (less is more);
2) too many mock jurors (recruit a more reasonable number of 12-15);
3) too long of a day (juror fatigue is real; keep the days a reasonable length);
4) long presentations (juror attention span is short, keep presentations short);
5) the approach to testing damages (just want to get a feel for a range; a mock trial with juror deliberations is the method to get specifics).
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/tFi

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 112 - Importance of Behavioral Consistency of Defendants

Trial is a battle of perception and jurors pay very close attention to the behavior of the litigants, particularly the defendant. Behavioral consistency is highly correlated with honesty and truthfulness. In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. describes the 4 golden traits of an effective defendant including, 1) Professionalism; 2) Confidence/comfort; 3) Maintaining emotional poise; and 4) Engaged and attentive in the process. 
Why are these qualities so important? Jurors use their observations of defendant behaviors and reactions to judge your client. This process begins in jury selection and continues through opening statements, testimony of all witnesses, and closing arguments. So, defendants must maintain behavioral consistency on all fronts to give jurors a positive, consistent impression throughout the entire trial. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/tRI

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 111 - Alternative Causation plus more Frequently Asked Questions

In this episode Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss the importance of alternative causation, plus answer podcast viewer and listener questions. Steve and Bill talk about how jury research demonstrates that jurors don't care that the plaintiff has the burden of proof on causation and that human information processing requires them to identify cause. Because of this, defense attorneys must help jurors by providing alternative causation considerations in order for jurors to move to considering damages. Steve and Bill share their insights on planting seeds for your case in voir dire to ensure jurors will follow the judge's instructions and the value of using mock trials to test liability well before trial. 
Questions asked and answered in this episode:- Can multiple witness be trained at one time and how does that work?- Does a juror's social media activity have an impact on verdicts?- How have damage awards changed since the onset of Covid?- Does social inflation cause nuclear verdicts?
Watch the video of the episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/fMg

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 110 - Common Themes in Birth Injury Cases

One of the most emotional, challenging, and difficult cases are birth injury cases. Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss some of the common themes they have seen during focus groups and mock trials for birth injury cases. Specifically, they share insights from jurors on these topics: 
- jurors' perceptions and lack of understanding of the employment status of physicians as independent contractors vs. being employees of the hospital; - jurors' awareness of the comparative time nurses spend with patients vs. doctors but who they hold ultimately responsible for care and why this can be a problem for the doctor; - jurors' opinions on the communications between all involved parties (nurses, doctors, hospital)- challenge of dealing with the potentially conflicting situation of sympathy of jurors toward the plaintiff, their positive perceptions of healthcare professionals, and how this impacts their process in awarding damages; - jurors' perceptions of adherence to hospital rules and policies; - effectiveness of day in the life videos;- and more.
Watch the video of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/upr