The Litigation Psychology Podcast

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 inadequa...

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...

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 de...

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 r...

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 ev...

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 trial...

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...

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 a...

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 f...

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. B...

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 a...

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...

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 ha...

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...

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 k...

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...

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 waiti...

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 them...

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 impor...

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 ultimate...

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 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...

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 inte...

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...

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 homeow...