The Litigation Psychology Podcast

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 278 - Trucking and Transportation Litigation Defense Roundtable

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.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 277 - Avoiding Common Litigation Mistakes

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.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 276 - Securing a Defense Verdict Using Disruptive Voir Dire

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.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 275 - Challenges and Opportunities in Trucking Litigation Today

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.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 274 - Strategies to Identify Beliefs and Attitudes in Voir Dire

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.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 273 - Breaking Down the Steps to Another Defense Verdict

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.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 272 - Listener Mail

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?

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 271 - Facial Expressions & Body Language During Video Depositions

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. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 270 - Plaintiff Attorney Social Media Promotion

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? 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 269 - Analyzing the Path to a Recent Defense Verdict

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