The Litigation Psychology Podcast

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 201 - Med Mal Litigation Part 2 - Expert Witness Testimony

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the role and impact of expert witnesses in medical malpractice litigation. Bill shares that typically expert witness testimony doesn't get you very far in med mal cases in terms of juror decision-making. This is due to the fact that the expert witness is unable to directly evaluate the patient unlike expert witnesses who can, for example, evaluate defective parts in a product liability case. Expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases can help with case evaluation and help with preparing the case, but their testimony does not influence juror decision-making. One area where an expert witness can make an impact is with the visual presentation of the case and their ability to teach. The most important influence over juror decision-making will be the testimony and performance of the fact witnesses in your case.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 200 - Misperceptions About Juror Anger and Nuclear Verdicts

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. commemorate the 200th episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast and discuss the misunderstanding many have about the correlation between juror anger and outsized verdicts. Steve and Bill share the scientific data that Courtroom Sciences has collected and analyzed to understand the role that juror anger does or does not play in nuclear verdicts. Steve and Bill explain the process of collecting the data and how the results show that although juror anger is a factor in large damage awards, it is a small percentage when compared to other factors. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/GSV

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 199 - Med Mal Litigation Part 1 - Nurse Depositions (LPNs)

In the first part of a series of episodes about medical malpractice litigation, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about nurses sitting for deposition, in particular, the LPN, and the importance of the initial meeting and communication with these nurses. These lower-level nurses often struggle at deposition due to their nervousness about the process, fear of the ramifications, potential blame issues, etc. It's critical to meet with these nurses as soon as possible, checking in with them, seeing how they are doing, and demonstrating that you care about them as a person. Bill discusses how crucial the initial assessment of their mental, physical, and emotional state is before any prep for the deposition starts. Also, it is important to ask them difficult questions about their job, including whether there have been issues at work previously, whether they blame anyone else for the incident at the heart of the case, and their specifics memories of what took place. Lastly, Bill talks about getting their commitment to work with you to prepare for their deposition. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/c3S

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 198 - Social Media and the Courtroom

Steve Wood, Ph.D. is joined by Sean Murphy, Practice Leader of CSI Critical Communications & Brent Turman, Partner with Bell Nunnally to talk about social media in the courtroom. Sean begins by talking about cameras in the courtroom and gives the example of the narrative around Donald Trump's upcoming trials and his team's request for allowing cameras in the courtroom. Brent shares how important public opinion can be in some trials and how that may influence the wording in different motions that the trial teams may file, even if that language may not be legally necessary but instead may be influential for the narrative in the traditional media and social media. The group offer their perspectives on the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial and how their legal teams did and did not leverage social media to influence the court of public opinion, as well as, how documentaries about different trials have an impact on the reputation of the litigants involved. Lastly, Steve, Sean, and Brent discuss other social media and public perception considerations that should be factored in when managing litigation. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/XDk

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 197 - Making an Accident Plan

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. is joined by Brendan Dawson, Founder of Accident Plan, to talk about how the Accident Plan software helps guide truck drivers to manage and secure an accident scene when an incident occurs and capture the critical data to be shared with others offsite. Brendan shares how the training for truck drivers using Accident Plan allows them to be more prepared and follow a process and checklist when dealing with an accident. Bill and Brendan talk about the return on investment on being proactive and getting stakeholders informed quickly and early so that claims can be handled effectively and at the lowest possible cost in terms of money and time. Brendan also discusses the work he does in private investigation for both the defense and plaintiff side. Brendan offers his advice to defendants to investigate yourself; to know your own weaknesses and shortcomings before opposing counsel does it for you. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/zVu

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 196 - Listener Mail

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. kick off 2024 with another episode answering podcast listener mail. Questions addressed:
-  How can I deal with anchoring by plaintiff's counsel?-  Is it okay if my witness wears a nose ring to her video deposition?-  How can I deal with an ex-employee who is not willing to cooperate in their deposition prep?-  Does it sound bad for a witness to respond to a question with "I don't know"?-  Is it better for a female attorney to cross-examine an adverse female witness?-  Should I use the Reptile book during my closing argument to help jurors recognize what the Reptile attorney is doing?-  What are things that the defense team can do that really bother the plaintiff's team?

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 195 - Working with Witnesses Suffering from PTSD

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talk about the impacts of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) on witnesses in litigation. PTSD can occur in several different types of litigation and isn't exclusively just in cases involving vehicle accidents or bad medical outcomes. Steve and Bill provide a checklist for defense attorneys on what to look for when working with witnesses to identify potential PTSD issues that may require additional time, assessment, or even treatment. 
Some signs to look for and/or questions to ask: - intrusive memories and thoughts; - negative changes in thinking and mood; - ask about their relationships and their support network; - assess their reactions and attitude; - how's your sleep quality?; - are you self-medicating/drinking?; - are you experiencing or dealing with physical pain?
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/sRl

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 194 - Managing the Teaching Moment During Trial Testimony

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about how to manage the teaching moment during trial testimony. When your expert witness or defendant is put on the stand with the goal of teaching the jurors something, your witness must meet the jury where they are. It's important to remember the concept of juror cognitive lag, which is that jurors will lag behind in their cognition and your witness has to understand that the jurors are not going to be able to follow along easily. So, the witness has to make adjustments to their teaching methodology and you and your witness have to practice the teaching process, perhaps up to 5-10 times. 
Common mistakes that are made during the teaching moment of trial: 
- Going too fast - have to remember that the jury can't ask questions or ask the witness to slow down. - Visuals are not juror friendly - exhibits and demonstratives need to be easy for jurors to understand and follow; it's important to test the visuals before using them at trial. - Talking above the juror's heads - have to define any terms that the witness is using that might be uncommon or unfamiliar to the jurors and use examples or analogies to help the jurors understand the concept the witness is trying to teach or explain.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 193 - Defense Attorney Strategies for Deposition

Bryan Aghakhani, Partner, Bordin Semmer joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the attorney perspective on the deposition. Bryan states that cases are won or lost at deposition and that the preparation before deposition, and being actively engaged at deposition with objections, is key for defense attorneys when defending depositions. Bryan and Bill discuss the difference in preparing a fact witness and a corporate representative 30(b)(6) for deposition and also talk about the strategy and approach for taking a plaintiff's deposition. Bryan shares his thoughts on taking the deposition of the plaintiff's expert and the philosophy around hiring an expert for the defense. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/HvF

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 192 - The Fallacy Behind Humanizing the Corporation for Jurors

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talk about the misperception that humanizing the corporation is valuable and relevant to jurors. Often, defense counsel and the companies they represent want to talk at trial about how their company is made up of individuals just like the jurors, how much the company gives in charity, how many volunteering activities they do, and more. Steve and Bill debunk the assumption that time spent humanizing the company will make jurors more sympathetic toward the company. Talking  about all of the things the company does that "humanizes" them is a waste of valuable time and doesn't resonate with jurors. Rather, the way that the corporate rep for the company presents at deposition and trial is much more important than focusing on the humanizing the company. The person representing the company needs to be authentic, caring, compassionate, etc. and this will be much more meaningful and impactful with jurors than a company "commercial" that tries to humanize the company.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/40U