The Litigation Psychology Podcast

Chantal Roberts, Principal & CEO of CMR Consulting, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk all about insurance. Bill and Chantal discuss the all-out blitz against the insurance industry by the plaintiff's bar and the issues with policyholder's confusion and misunderstanding about insurance. They discuss the relationship between defense attorneys and adjusters and suggest how they can work better together. Bill and Chantal talk about the evolution of Reptile and the expansion of Reptile questions beyond safety and risk to other areas such as claims handling in bad faith cases and fairness in employment cases. Lastly, they discuss where things are headed in the insurance industry and the impact and future of AI in insurance.

The likeability of witnesses is a huge factor in juror evaluation and decision-making. Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the necessity of testing plaintiff likeability by getting the plaintiff deposition on video so it can be played in a focus group to get feedback on the plaintiff. Juror perception of the plaintiff is a major influencing factor in how they consider the case. Likeability of defense witnesses is important to test as well since the likeability factor applies to both sides, so understanding what jurors think about the likeability, credibility, knowledge, etc. of all witnesses is crucial. Lastly, Bill shares how to address likeability of plaintiff witnesses in voir dire in order to diffuse it as an issue during deliberations.

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about early jury research. Linda describes the format of the virtual focus group model and benefits that clients and attorneys realize from conducting these education and evaluation jury research projects. Bill and Linda discuss how focus groups differ from mock trials, and how, especially when conducted early, help identify hidden vulnerabilities in your case. They also talk about the advantages of the test/retest model in jury research and how focus groups can, in certain circumstances, be more useful for trial prep than a mock trial. Lastly, they discuss other uses of the focus group model including testing counter-anchors, damages, liability, voir dire, opening statements, and exhibits.

Mike Bassett, Trial Lawyer and Managing Partner at The Bassett Firm, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to commemorate the 300th episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast and discuss a wide range of topics about managing litigation and how things have evolved over the years. Mike shares the benefits he and his firm realize from conducting early jury research and how these early focus groups guide discovery and influence mediation. Steve, Bill, and Mike talk about the importance of validity in how jury research is conducted, the impact of confirmation bias on the legal team, and how clients need to view jury research as an investment, not simply an expense. The group also talk about attorney recruitment, attorney retention and the benefits of using Culture Index for hiring and team management. Lastly, they discuss the use of AI in legal and the criticality of briefer and tighter opening statements in today's world of short attention spans.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares recent feedback he has received from corporate and insurance clients with regards to a reluctance by some of their defense attorneys to take a different approach in how they manage their client's litigation. Some corporate and insurance clients are wanting more proactivity and aggressiveness from their counsel and are running into resistance from some, which is leaving them frustrated. Bill tells a couple of stories from recent interactions as examples of how corporate and insurance clients are thinking about the working relationship with their firms and makes suggestions about how attorneys can get better alignment with their clients on how they want their files handled.

Doug Marcello, Shareholder with Saxton & Stump and an expert in trucking litigation, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to give a state of the union on litigation in the transportation and trucking space. Doug shares what he sees as the primary issues in trucking litigation today and Bill and Doug discuss suggestions on what insurance companies and defense attorneys should do differently in managing their litigation. Doug shoots down common objections the defense side often bring up related to being proactive. He describes the benefits of conducting early jury research and talks about situations where it makes sense to proactively sue the plaintiff for an accident before they can file suit against the defendant. Bill and Doug also discuss the driver shortage challenge, managing immigrant drivers, technology, AI, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. describes the surprising connection between Meat Loaf's 1993 hit song I Would Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) and the Reptile Theory. Bill breaks down the correlation between the lyrics of this love song and the unreasonable expectations and standards that are present in Reptile questions. He explains how attorneys need to help witnesses understand that circumstances and judgment play a pivotal role when responding to classic Reptile questions in deposition.

Holly Howanitz, Managing Partner with Tyson & Mendes, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the current state of litigation in Florida after the tort reform bill H.B. 837 was passed in March 2023. Holly shares how both tort reform and the new rules of civil procedure that went into effect in January 2025 are impacting cases. The biggest change that Holly has seen is related to medical bills since whether the plaintiff had health insurance was not allowed to be discussed in court before tort reform. Bill and Holly also discuss how to handle anchoring, thoughts on medical billing experts, dealing with modified comparative negligence, eggshell plaintiffs, anchoring apportionment, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. describes what he calls the dead zone in opening statements. The dead zone is the middle part of the opening where juror attention is at its lowest. Bill lays out a 3 x 3 framework for the dead zone in the opening: 3 core issues supported by 3 high impact facts. He talks about how the opening statement should be focused on teasing and framing your case, not getting into the weeds, and letting your witnesses handle the details later. Lastly, Bill describes the concepts of dilution and repetition in opening statements.

Jim Pattillo & Todd Weston, Partners with Christian & Small, join Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about a range of topics on managing a law firm and managing litigation. The group discuss how to get younger attorneys trial experience, particularly when fewer and fewer cases are going to trial, how to manage stress, work/life balance, and healthy lifestyles while still growing a profitable firm, thoughts around voir dire, mistakes they have made while practicing law and the lessons learned, witness preparation, and more.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. take a look back at some cases the CSI team worked on during 2025 and share stories, takeaways, and lessons learned. Bill and Steve talk about what causes witness deposition failures and why leveraging neurocognitive witness training leads to improve deposition testimony. They talk about why the work attorneys do to prep witnesses are often inadequate and why its not the attorney's fault. Bill and Steve also provide updates on recent changes in how CSI conducts jury research and how focus group research has transformed case development and strategy for attorneys. They describe the importance of validity and reliability in jury research and how conducting exploratory research like focus groups vs. confirmatory research like mock trials can significantly improve litigation management decisions. Lastly, they discuss alternatives to traditional jury selection and why a focus on voir dire questioning strategy (i.e. disruptive voir dire) and opening statement construction is much more useful than having a jury consultant sitting next to the legal team during jury selection.

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 prep and testimony. Identifying and addressing distractions and concerns is imperative to maximize witness prep and performance. The other key is to start this process from the first contact with the witness. Expressing genuine concern from the first interaction with the witness communicates that their well-being is paramount in the litigation process and builds trust and rapport for them with the legal team, which results in a better prep process and, ultimately, better deposition outcomes.

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 opening statements, voir dire, and cross-examination?

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 counsel into an open-ended follow-up like “Why?”, which gives the witness more time to think and respond from the logical (not emotional) part of the brain. Bill also clarifies common misconceptions about witnesses who answer with "No" appearing evasive, why jurors dislike pivoting or arguing witnesses, and how “reject and elevate” protects credibility while maintaining emotional control. He explains how witnesses can later provide explanations, during defense follow-up at deposition or rehabilitation at trial, without exposing themselves to attack when they’re under pressure.

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. Bill emphasizes the importance of normalizing confirmation bias through the sharing of personal examples and guiding jurors to reflect on times when they changed their minds after learning more. By forcing jurors to engage cognitively rather than reactively, attorneys can dramatically reduce the likelihood of premature, biased conclusions. Bill closes with specific question structures and strategic sequencing that reprogram juror thinking and prevent snap judgments during trial.

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 strategy, themes, and voir dire long before mediation or trial. Bill warns that when defense teams skip this exploratory step, they enter mediation and trial preparation with major blind spots and lacking data while the plaintiff’s side often has extensive exploratory data and ammunition, which is particularly impactful with mediators. Bill closes by urging defense counsel to adopt a disciplined, phased research process that begins early with exploratory focus groups to reduce risk and improve litigation outcomes.

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 molestation cases where jurors often apply modern norms and knowledge to past events. They also highlight how technology, especially video evidence, further expands hindsight bias by giving jurors clarity and insight that defendants never had in real time. Steve and Linda also cover counterfactual thinking (i.e., “If only they had done X”) and how plaintiffs use it to oversimplify causation. Lastly, they outline how defense counsel can confront hindsight bias during voir dire by using relatable examples and consistently reframing what was knowable in the moment rather than after the fact.

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 - acknowledging that jurors will naturally think, “How do we put a value on a life?” - and then clearly explaining that the law does not ask them to do that. Instead, jurors are asked to compensate surviving family members for measurable economic and emotional losses. Bill walks through a step-by-step strategy for correcting this misconception: expose and normalize the cognitive shortcut, redefine the juror’s task in line with the law, and secure public, verbal pre-commitments from jurors to follow the court’s instructions. He also recommends going a step further by asking jurors to commit to keeping one another on track during deliberations. Bill concludes by noting that this structured approach not only prevents confusion and emotional decision-making by jurors but also strengthens the defense’s position by grounding jurors in rational, law-based reasoning right from the start.

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 trial, state emphatically what the case is about, and not talk about what the case is not about, which only reinforces the plaintiff's perspective. The goal with the opening statement is to reframe what the plaintiff presents in their opening. The next issue Bill discusses is how lengthy opening statements that include the attorney thanking the jury for their service, talking about themselves or their client, or sharing a story from their childhood are a waste of those critical first two minutes in front of the jurors. What attorneys have to realize is that jurors don't remember facts and details; they remember how you made them feel. Lastly, Bill talks about the importance of testing opening statements with mock jurors. Getting direct feedback from jurors and practicing the delivery and story is a critical, but often skipped, step in the trial preparation process and attorneys who do not test their opening statements with mock jurors in a focus group risk their entire case.

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 potentially problematic information and describes a much better approach than pivoting or arguing with the questioning attorney. Bill emphasizes the importance of owning your conduct and why that's the best way to diffuse this line of questioning from opposing counsel. Lastly, Bill addresses how to help witnesses address accusatory questions without pivoting.