Oscar Lara, Shareholder at Rincon Law Group, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about translators for non-native English speakers or foreign-born witnesses and the challenges of working with interpreters during witness preparation and for testimony. Much of Oscar's  practice involves working with many Spanish-speaking witnesses and he shares the challenges of working with these witnesses, of using interpreters during witness prep, and the difficulties associated with different dialects. Bill, Steve and Oscar talk about how the language barrier can also be a challenge for jurors in a trial setting and the additional difficulties for witnesses who are able to speak English but it might be more broken English or speak with a heavy accent so they are not great communicators in English. The group also talks about regional and language differences in the jury pool and how to assess jurors on their ability to comprehend English during jury selection, the irrational fears of foreign-born witnesses, and the importance of building trust with these witnesses.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talk about their latest paper published in CLM Magazine on Preventing Nuclear Settlements at Deposition and the dangers of pivoting during deposition. Steve and Bill discuss the risks to witnesses who are encouraged by defense counsel to pivot during testimony and how cases where witnesses are told to pivot settle for higher amounts than they should. They talk about the strategic and economic risks of pivoting and how a witness that pivots during their deposition is providing a direct benefit to opposing counsel. Steve and Bill describe how effective witness deposition training is predicated on a concept they call 'Embrace & Reject' and how important it is to avoid amygdala hijack during testimony.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the difference between witness prep and witness training and how the combination of the defense attorney with a witness training expert is the perfect partnership. Some attorneys don't understand or appreciate the difference between witness prep and witness training. Witness prep is the attorney's job going over documents and exhibits and developing the legal strategy. Witness training is focused on working with the witness on their cognition, behavior, and emotion, delivering a sophisticated neurocognitive training that creates a more effective witness. Getting a positive outcome from testimony requires the combination and partnership of both defense counsel and a witness training expert. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Ye9

Dr. Steve Wood shares what to look for in a corporate representative and a list of five (5) essential elements for someone to serve as an effective 30(b)(6) witness:

1) Humility - The individual has to feel comfortable saying "I don't know". 

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ph4

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about a list of words that the brain normally doesn't think of as bad words but which can be really bad words if a witness says them, or agrees to them, in deposition or trial testimony. These are trap words that lock witnesses into inflexible positions and are a big reason why witness effectiveness training, prior to testimony, is crucial to litigation success.

The Bad Word List (aka the anti-reptile word list): always/never; must/should; required/obligated/duty; insure/guarantee; every/everything/all; any/anything; risk/danger/harm/safety; well-being; priority; important; prevent; deviate; breach; violate. Each of these words eliminate judgment and circumstances and if written in policies and procedures can get you into trouble precisely because they remove judgment from the equation.

The Good Word List (words to use when appropriate during testimony): judgment; training; experience; appropriate; reasonable; sufficient; circumstances; situation.

Words that are "Middle of the Road" Words (not necessarily good words nor bad words; use judiciously): potentially; maybe; possibly; sometimes; not necessarily.

Dr. Kyle Boone, Clinical Neuropsychologist and Clinical Professor at UCLA, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) in litigation. TBI claims are increasing exponentially and Dr. Boone gives an overview of concussions and mild traumatic brain injuries and discusses assumptions, myths, and truths about the diagnosis of a mild TBI. Dr. Boone and Dr. Kanasky, Jr. discuss how these issues play out in litigation, what defense attorneys need to be aware of in TBI cases, juror assumptions about concussions, and how to best utilize and cross-examine expert witnesses in TBI litigation. Contact Dr. Boone at [email protected].

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about egregious conduct in the trucking and transportation industry. Bill describes the importance of accurately assessing your case early with focus groups to find out what jurors might think about the case.

Bill also lists specific behaviors and topics that jurors consistently have issues with in trucking and transportation cases: 1) Dash cam video; 2) Unenforced policies; 3) Log falsifications; 4) Driver substance abuse; 5) Poor hiring practices; 6) Cell phone use by driver; 7) Listening to YouTube (but not watching); 8) Weak driver training; 9) Excessive speed; 10) Driving in inclement weather; 11) Sleeping hour violations; 12) Social media posts.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/3nd

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. discuss who's to blame when things go poorly with a case. Bill and Steve share stories of when and how jury consultants get blamed or are set up as the fall guy for situations when depositions, jury selections, or trials turn out badly for the defense. They talk about the risk in accuracy, reliability, and predictability when cutting corners with jury research and the importance of a methodical, scientific process for recruiting, screening, and compensating jurors for a mock trial. They also discuss the problems with clients requesting to accomplish too much in a single mock trial when its a complicated case, not putting on the best opposition case in a mock trial, and how the reluctance on the defense side to admit liability can create risks and that admitting liability and anchoring damages needs to be tested in a mock trial. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/3vv

Holly Howanitz, Partner, Wicker Smith joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about ways to prepare opening statements that attract and hold juror attention and engagement. Holly talks about using visual stimuli in openings, her thoughts on the length of her openings, and how she decides how long her openings will be. In addition, Holly discusses managing turnover within the firm when associates or attorneys leave to take another job, how her firm helps getting younger attorneys experience, and why clients need to understand the necessity of getting these younger attorneys valuable experience with witness prep, mediations, and trial. Bill and Holly also talk about managing disagreements with clients or a lack of alignment on the assessment or strategy of a case. Lastly they discuss the role of fitness and managing your physical and mental health when having stressful jobs. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/qNd

Dr. Steve Wood discusses the topic of humanizing the corporate defendant. The data doesn’t support that making the argument to jurors that the corporation is made up of regular people who just go to work and try to do their best. Mock trials and actual trials have consistently demonstrated that jurors see through these arguments and don't buy into this. Jurors also discount arguments made about how the company supports other worthy causes, recognizing that those charitable contributions are tax write-offs and calling those actions out as insincere or tainted. 

Based on all this, what can be done to humanize the corporate defendant?