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, risking false positives and false negatives

- mock trials are built on argument and persuasion and when presentations are not balanced and when the presenters for both sides are not equal in their communication skills, their persuasion skills, and their appeal to jurors, significant bias can skew the results

The solution is to follow the scientific method and conduct focus groups before the mock trial. Focus groups allow the defense team to find hidden vulnerabilities and juror comprehension issues and avoid false positives and false negatives well before conducting the confirmatory research step that is the mock trial. The focus group is the necessary screening tool for litigation.

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, comparing it to a surgeon operating without diagnostic scans. Meaningful jury selection requires data to build juror profiles and well-structured, insightful questions and follow-ups to extract useful responses to identify safe and risky jurors.

Bill stresses that winning cases demands balance across all stages of litigation: witness training for both deposition and trial, early and iterative jury research, scientifically-based voir dire, and tested and compelling opening statements. He notes that even a perfect jury selection is useless if the attorney is delivering a poor opening statement or putting up unprepared witnesses, and that cutting corners in these areas leads to predictable losses. Instead, he urges defense teams to invest in comprehensive preparation and ongoing training to strengthen performance across the board.

Lastly, Bill shares a recent example of a defense verdict that came down to witness credibility and preparation. He outlines the techniques that led to success including the witness controlling the pace, avoiding argumentative “pivoting,” and keeping testimony clear, concise, and authentic. He closes by encouraging law firms to adopt structured, science-based training for attorneys to move the needle toward more consistent defense wins.

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, conducting multiple focus groups throughout case development to uncover blind spots and test themes.

Bill contrasts this with defense teams that often rely on gut feelings, hunches, or prior cases rather than data from the case at hand. Using a real fatality case example, he illustrates how an insurance company’s refusal to fund jury research, despite facing a potential $25 million exposure, left the defense flying blind while the plaintiff likely had extensive data on juror perceptions, themes, and damages. This imbalance, he argues, fuels nuclear verdicts and demonstrates why relying on instinct instead of evidence is so costly.

To counter confirmation bias, Bill advocates for early, cost-effective jury research, even pre-suit. He emphasizes that small, exploratory focus groups can act as pilot studies that guide case strategy, discovery, witness preparation, and expert planning long before trial. By investing early in data-driven insights, defense teams can make more informed settlement decisions, reduce uncertainty, and prevent disastrous verdicts.

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 compelling story. Dilution occurs when attorneys talk too long, over-explain, or defend unnecessarily, which weakens the message and causes jurors to tune out. Bill explains why less is more and that potency comes from repetition, silence, and reframing the narrative right from the start. He urges attorneys to avoid “dead zones” in the middle of openings, stay high-level (“in the clouds, not the weeds”), and let witnesses handle details later. Finally, Bill highlights the value and importance of testing openings with focus groups to gather feedback from mock jurors to help guide and fine-tune delivery, frequency, and clarity before trial.

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 evaluation to address psychological and emotional issues, and early deposition preparation using neurocognitive remapping and systematic desensitization to ensure witnesses are protected from cognitive autopilot issues and plaintiff attacks. By eliminating these common errors, defense teams can significantly reduce the risk in their cases and position themselves for more consistent wins.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.