x

75% of people globally want unbiased news (Pew Research) but are concerned they're not getting that.

Get balanced coverage with Symby. See how stories are covered across diverse outlets and spot when one side covers a story the other skips.

PODCAST

The Litigation Psychology Podcast

The Litigation Psychology Podcast presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) is a podcast for in-house and outside defense counsel and insurance claims personnel about the intersection of science and litigation. We explore topics of interest to the defense bar, with a particular emphasis on subjects that don‘t get enough attention. Our hosts are experts in Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, and scientifically-based jury research with a wealth of knowledge about psychology, science, jury

science social sciences

All Episodes

30:43

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 292 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2026/01/05

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. speaks about how important it is to establish trust with witnesses prior to starting any prep. Attorneys need to ask witnesses how they are doing, demonstrate that they genuinely care about their witness's mental and emotional state, and earn their trust before diving into any of the specifics of the litigation. Witnesses may have issues impacting them that are completely unrelated to the lawsuit, though those factors may directly affect how they are able to perform during

en

51:56

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 291 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/12/15

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. answer another batch of podcast viewer and listener questions:• When is the right time to conduct a focus group—should I wait until discovery is complete? • Can I test my opening statement in front of staff members or family? • Why is it important to test opening statements with mock jurors? • Should a consultant or moderator sit inside the jury deliberation room during a mock trial? • What are the most common trial mistakes defense attorneys make in

en

30:43

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 290 - The...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/12/08

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. breaks down why the single most powerful testimony tool in depositions and trial is the disciplined use of “No” or “I disagree”, followed by silence. Bill explains how witnesses get into trouble when they add explanations after a comma (“No, because…”), which leads to defensive or evasive answers and creates damaging credibility issues. Instead, he emphasizes a strategy rooted in cognitive science: reject the premise cleanly, elevate tone and composure, and force opposing

en

29:06

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 289 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/12/01

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. expands on the “disruptive voir dire” approach, focusing on how to neutralize juror confirmation bias, which is one of the most dangerous psychological forces in the courtroom, and in life. Bill explains why all humans are hardwired to make rapid, belief-driven judgments and how those cognitive shortcuts can lock jurors into the plaintiff’s narrative before the defense even begins its case.He outlines a structured voir dire method that exposes confirmation bias directly

en

27:17

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 288 - The...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/11/24

In this episode, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. explains why most defense teams misuse jury research by relying solely on a single mock trial and skipping the exploratory phase required by the scientific method for validity and reliability. Bill breaks down how early focus groups are critical in revealing juror confusion, hidden vulnerabilities in your case, and dangerous misconceptions that mock trials are unable to uncover. He also emphasizes that early exploratory research can shape discovery, expert

en

36:58

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 287 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/11/17

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Linda Khzam, M.A. break down the topic of hindsight bias and its impact on juror decision-making. They explain how learning an outcome makes jurors believe it was predictable all along, leading to exaggerated foreseeability and unrealistic expectations of what defendants “should have known.”Steve and Linda discuss how hindsight bias appears across different case types from trucking and transportation to incidents involving police officers to decades-old sexual assault and

en

33:38

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 286 – The...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/11/10

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses a recurring problem in wrongful death cases: jurors’ tendency to mistakenly believe their job is to assign a monetary value to a life. Bill explains how this cognitive shortcut often leads to inflated damage awards because jurors default to emotional reasoning rather than following the legal instructions.To prevent this, Bill emphasizes that the issue must be addressed proactively during voir dire. He outlines a process that begins with exposing the problem -

en

34:07

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 285 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/11/03

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about several issues he sees with opening statements. Bill highlights the biggest issue the CSI team comes across in opening statements: starting the opening statement in the wrong spot. Bill emphasizes the importance of the first two minutes of the opening and how those first two minutes frame how you want the jury to see your case (i.e., the cognitive lens.) The first thing that the defense attorney has to do in their opening is put someone or something else on

en

0:01

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 284 - Why...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/10/27

Bill Kanasky, Jr. Ph.D. shares a comparison between two different performances by witnesses at a recent mock trial and how their deposition performance impacted jurors' perceptions of the credibility of the witnesses and jurors' views of the case. One of the witnesses gave several pivoting responses, using phrases like "Yeah, but...." many times, which the jurors found evasive and did not like. Bill talks about how to handle situations where witnesses are asked questions related to bad facts or

en

25:35

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 283 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/10/20

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about what attorneys and defendants get wrong about jury research. Defense teams that follow the traditional jury research model and only conduct mock trials ignore the scientific method. If you want results you can have confidence in, you have to follow the proven scientific method. Bill describes the two biggest issues with mock trials:- conducting a mock trial as the first, and often only, research project invites a significant amount of error into your results,

en

27:28

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 282 - Win...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/10/13

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses setting proper expectations when it comes to managing litigation and the relationship between each element in litigation. For example, Bill highlights that success in trial depends on a constellation of factors, not just one element like jury selection, and that defense teams often place too much weight on a single component while neglecting others. He explains that having a consultant present for jury selection without supporting jury research is ineffective,

en

35:19

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 281 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/10/06

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses confirmation bias and its destructive impact on litigation decision-making. He explains that confirmation bias — when attorneys or claims professionals interpret case facts in ways that support their preexisting beliefs — is one of the most dangerous cognitive traps in civil litigation. Plaintiff attorneys have recognized this risk in their own thinking and combat it through early and consistent jury research,

en

33:53

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 280 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/09/29

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. breaks down two critical mistakes attorneys make in opening statements: dilution of their message and their communication frequency. Frequency refers to the attorney’s delivery dynamics - energy level, confidence, rhythm, and emotional tone - that either engages jurors or turns them off. Common problems with communication frequency include defensiveness, nervousness, over-talking, and coming across as if trying to sell something to the jury rather than telling them a

en

35:06

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 279 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/09/22

In this episode of the Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about common missteps in litigation and explains why defense teams must “stop losing before they can start winning.” He argues that many losses stem not from case facts but from preventable mistakes, as the plaintiff’s bar continues to be proactive while the defense often remains reactive.Bill highlights three key areas for improvement: early and accurate case assessment via frequent jury research, early witness

en

49:34

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 278 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/09/15

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

en

30:28

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 277 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/09/08

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

en

39:27

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 276 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/09/01

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

en

35:32

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 275 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/08/25

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

en

26:43

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 274 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/08/18

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

en

52:04

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 273 -...

The Litigation Psychology Podcast ·

2025/08/11

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

en

292 results

Similar Podcasts

Classic Radio Science Fiction

solgoodmedia.com

Mission to Mars

Inception Point Ai

The 365 Days of Astronomy

365DaysOfAstronomy.org

Creek Devil

william Jevning

UFO Chronicles Podcast

Nik Hunter