Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares insights with attorneys for witness prep prior to their witness's deposition testimony. Bill emphasizes that the most important thing for witnesses is to fail during preparation in order to learn and grow so they are prepared for their deposition. This approach can be a challenge for attorneys as you don't want your witness to get mad at you or you may have concerns about hurting their confidence during the prep. It is critical for the witness to understand that their failure during preparation has value and is actually necessary in order for them to be successful during testimony. As you start your mock questioning and you observe them failing, stop and give them feedback to build awareness of their performance. How you give them feedback is very important. You have to use operant conditioning and provide both constructive and positive feedback in order to punish poor performance -  to eliminate it - and reward good behavior - to increase it. The use of these psychological principles will help you fully prepare your witness by allowing them to fail during prep and providing them with the appropriate feedback so they are ready for the real thing.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/hPR

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about the psychological concept of amygdala hijack, which is the fight or flight reaction, and whether to induce amygdala hijack in the plaintiff or plaintiff's expert at deposition. Bill discusses the considerations and situations in which defense counsel should and should not employ this approach and some ideas on how and when to do so:

Medical malpractice trial attorney Tad Eckenrode joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the latest issues they are seeing in med mal cases. Tad and Bill discuss developments they are seeing recently including the increase in the number of 7-figure med mal cases as well as more openness from defense clients on investing in jury research to understand what these cases are really worth to help inform whether they should settle or go to trial. Tad shares the value he sees in collecting insights from mock jurors early in the life of the case, particularly during discovery and especially prior to mediation, to help shape how he approaches the strategic plan for the case and to inform the mediator of what his research shows the case is really worth. Tad and Bill talk about Gen Z jurors, artificial intelligence (AI), and attracting and retaining associates and giving them experience to help them develop and learn. They also describe examples of different witness situations and the challenges with preparing witnesses in these scenarios, including working with the growing population of physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Lastly, Tad and Bill talk about the risks of witness pivoting and how to handle witnesses who come into deposition prep with a high level of anger. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/1EM

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. joins host Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss five (5) problematic witness types. Steve and Bill talk about who these witnesses are, how to identify them, and how to work with each type of witness:

1) The overly agreeable witness - a witness who is willing to agree with everything opposing counsel says or implies; 

Each witness type can potentially fall victim to fight, flight, or freeze responses. Fight is an argumentative response when a witness wants to argue and defend their actions. Flight is when the witness feels scared or triggered and responds in a way to pacify the questioner via explanations and sharing too much information. And the freeze response is when the witness simply agrees with the assertions of the questioner and doesn't want to contradict them. Effective witness training requires proper neurocognitive assessment of the witness to determine their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state and an appropriate amount of time to identify potential psychological barriers that will prevent the witness from fully understanding and embracing the training and prep so their testimony can be effective. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/O5F

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares ideas on how to upgrade your voir dire by applying measurement. One of the primary purposes of voir dire is to elicit information and Bill talks about ways to extract information from jurors to get accurate responses. Bill discusses how to handle oral questioning during voir dire, including the use of a 0-10 scale and asking jurors to give one reason for their number. After going over the scientific methodology for this approach to data collection, Bill talks about the art aspect of voir dire: the setup of the question, the answer set/options given to the jurors, and what to do with their answers. As an example, when you get negative information from a juror, you don't want to punish that juror with your reaction because you want to identify other jurors who share that same perspective so you can strike them. Reacting negatively to a juror's response could shut down other jurors who may feel the same way but want to avoid your negative reaction. Lastly, Bill talks about how to do this in Federal court or if you are really short on time. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Psf

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. answer the latest podcast listener mail: 

- When doing jury research and there is a confidentiality issue, should I use real names or fake names?

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/QEX

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about witness preparation and the benefits of using an alternate questioner during mock questioning. Bill shares details on how the CSI witness training program works by building a foundation based on psychology. The first phase of the training is educational and focuses on cognition, behavior, and emotion and how the brain operates in its natural state and how we need it to work during testimony. Once the psychological foundation is built, then strategy can take place, which is the second phase of the training. Bill talks about the benefits of recruiting another attorney to roleplay plaintiff's counsel during the mock questioning portion of the witness training. Bill also shares ideas about how to leverage exposure theory and operant conditioning to help guide the witness during their mock questioning and how this is easier to do if you have an alternate questioner. Lastly, Bill suggests that including younger associates or early career attorneys in the witness preparation process is good practice for them, discusses how you know if your witness is ready for their testimony, and how to handle schedule changes with depositions. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/SZ9

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. are joined by NYC trial attorney Tony Battista of Condon & Forsyth LLP in the second part of their discussion about a high profile trial they recently worked on together. The group talks about their approach for opening statements, how many drafts of the opening they had, how many versions they tested with mock jurors, and how they dealt with all of the bad stuff in their case in the opening. Tony shares his strategy for cross-examination and his philosophy on dealing with judges. Tony also discusses how he developed his closing for a 14-week trial and the group talk about how to define a win in any case. Bill, Steve, and Tony share how they maintained their mental and physical health during this lengthy trial preparation process and what some of their key takeaways were from working on this huge case. Lastly, Tony shares insights on how he gets the younger attorneys in his firm training and experience. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/VZF

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. are joined by NYC trial attorney Tony Battista of Condon & Forsyth LLP in the first of a two-part discussion on trial techniques and details on a large aviation fatality case that they recently worked on together. Tony shares his background, talks about how he approaches highly complicated cases, and how he keeps a positive perspective when experiencing difficult days during trial. Tony describes how his team responds to an aviation accident at the time of the incident and what the legal team does to address the emotions of witnesses who are processing a highly tragic situation, including how they manage challenging depositions with these witnesses. Steve shares details behind the jury research conducted for this case and the group talks about the importance of testing and re-testing strategies, themes, concepts, and other ideas that the legal team have to ensure that research-support data are driving decisions and not individual team member biases. Tony, Bill, and Steve also discuss jury selection, the research-based juror profile they developed for voir dire and the importance of sticking with the data-supported profile even when it may seem counter-intuitive to some members of the legal team. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/FR3

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares a list of dirty little tricks used by opposing counsel at deposition that can cause issues for witnesses who have not been trained and prepared for these devious tricks. 

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/a3Q