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 homeowner liability posed a major challenge, as jurors often believe that property owners are automatically responsible for any accidents on their premises.

Shane and Bill walk through how narrative strategy played a crucial role in the defense. Rather than opening with a sympathetic focus on the defendant, they shifted the “cognitive lens” of the jury by starting the story from the perspective of the contractor and the assistant. This reframing emphasized poor decisions made by others, redirecting initial juror blame away from the homeowner. Shane credits this approach, along with targeted voir dire questions about juror assumptions on property liability, as key to shaping juror perception from the outset. He also discusses how medical damages were dropped last-minute by the plaintiff to focus solely on non-economic damages - a move designed to avoid anchoring jurors with a high medical figure.

Shane and Bill also explore the tactical complexities faced during trial, including a non-suit of a co-defendant mid-trial and the withdrawal of damages claims just before key cross-examination, forcing rapid adjustments. Shane shares how maintaining flexibility and staying focused on the evolving trial landscape helped the defense team stay effective. Finally, the two discuss the emotional impact of a defense verdict for the client, the importance of involving young attorneys in trial work, and why mentorship, trial exposure, and civility with opposing counsel are essential for a sustainable legal career.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/X6E

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. explains how cortisol, the brain’s primary stress hormone, can significantly impair witness performance during testimony. He describes how elevated cortisol levels, produced during perceived threats, impair cognitive functions such as memory, decision-making, and emotional regulation. Bill introduces the stress-performance curve, noting that optimal performance occurs at moderate stress levels (between 4 and 6 on a 10-point scale). When cortisol levels are too high, the brain shifts from logical, prefrontal cortex functioning into survival mode, triggering fight, flight, or freeze responses.

Bill urges attorneys to monitor their witnesses closely for early signs of rising cortisol, such as changes in facial expression, posture, tone, and speech. Once stress exceeds a 7, it becomes very difficult to recover, as cortisol can remain elevated for hours and often triggers adrenaline, amplifying the problem. He emphasizes the need for proactive breaks at the first signs of stress escalation to prevent overexplaining, guessing, or emotional outbursts during deposition.

To counter cortisol’s effects, Bill outlines a training protocol that includes education, skill development, and systematic desensitization. Witnesses must understand the stress response, learn to self-monitor their stress levels, and practice breathing, pacing, and positive internal dialogue. Witnesses must be neurocognitively trained to manage the foreign experience of a deposition and understand what may trigger emotional responses. Gradual exposure to emotionally triggering stimuli, such as graphic evidence or hostile questioning, helps the brain adapt and remain calm. Lastly, Bill stresses that effective witness prep must go beyond strategy and incorporate neuroscience to preserve witness credibility and performance under pressure.

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

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss managing emotional and anxious witnesses during deposition prep. Drawing on her background in cognitive neuroscience and working with crime victims, Linda explains that many witnesses enter the litigation process with no understanding of what to expect, likening it to being dropped unprepared into a foreign country. She stresses the need to provide a clear roadmap, explaining logistics, roles, and expectations, to help witnesses feel grounded and prepared.

A crucial aspect in witness preparation is identifying anxiety before it escalates. Linda describes signs such as rapid speech, over-explaining, or defensiveness as early indicators that a witness is becoming emotionally activated. She emphasizes the importance of mock questioning to surface these behaviors and help the attorney recognize when intervention is necessary. Witnesses are also encouraged to develop self-awareness around their “tells” and learn to pause and regulate themselves before they spiral. Sophisticated neurocognitive training teaches witnesses these tools.

Linda and Steve emphasize that deposition prep must be tailored to each individual, especially those dealing with external stressors or trauma. She explains that emotional issues like guilt, fear of job loss, or personal crises can interfere with memory and decision-making during testimony. By building rapport with the witness, taking time to address personal challenges, and practicing in realistic conditions, witnesses can approach depositions with more clarity, control, and confidence.

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. delivers a detailed lecture on the concept of neurocognitive remapping and why the human brain is not neurologically equipped for the pressures of litigation. He explains that 95% of witness errors are psychological, not legal or strategic, and that traditional attorney-led preparation often fails because it overlooks critical elements like cognition, emotion, and behavior. Neurocognitive remapping a science-based process that helps witnesses respond to high-stress litigation stimuli in a calm, logical, and strategic manner.

Bill explains how the brain is evolutionarily wired for workplace and social environments, where quick responses, cooperation, and elaboration are rewarded. However, those same behaviors become liabilities in testimony. A core focus of the training is slowing down cognitive reflexes, as fast answers often lead to volunteering harmful information or falling into traps set by opposing counsel. He introduces the question-answer cycle, a temporal model showing how witnesses can control half of the deposition process through deliberate pacing - improving cognition and limiting vulnerability by reducing the number of questions the opposing attorney can ask.

The remapping process includes assessing each witness’s cognitive, emotional, and communication profile, simulating real testimony pressure, and using operant conditioning through immediate feedback and reinforcement. Drawing from sports psychology, the training builds emotional regulation, focus, and mental endurance to keep witnesses functioning from the prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain where logic and impulse control reside - rather than slipping into amygdala hijack and fight-or-flight responses. Bill emphasizes this is not basic witness coaching, but a structured neurocognitive program that cultivates control, composure, and precision, ultimately producing testimony that is sharp, accurate, and resistant to tactics like the Reptile and Edge Theory.

Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/307

Georgianne Walker, Trial Attorney & Partner at May Oberfell Lorber, LLP, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss changes she has seen in litigation over the past couple of years. Georgianne talks about how her firm manages the volume of trial work with the logjam of trials taking place. Bill and Georgianne discuss the challenge of hiring, training, and retaining younger associates and how Georgianne's firm manages their associates and lateral hires. Georgianne shares how she works with difficult plaintiff attorneys and how she prepares witnesses for situations where opposing counsel might be acting up during their deposition. Bill and Georgianne discuss AI in legal and different ways they are seeing AI being used and not being used. Lastly, Georgianne provides a breakdown on a med mal case she recently worked on. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/CqN

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to answer some recent podcast viewer/listener mail:

- How can my client get their side of their story across at deposition if you tell witnesses to not offer explanations when answering deposition questions?

- How often should my witness be taking a break during a deposition?

- How can I prevent my witness from getting anxious during their deposition?

- If my witness is getting argumentative during questioning, how should I handle that?

- My witness has gone through the training process but the trial date got moved back, do we need to do the training again?

- I don't want to stress out my witness before deposition; should I tell them that we won't win or lose the case based on their testimony?

- Are some witnesses just a lost cause?

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

Steve Wood, Ph.D. joins host Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about how to help witnesses navigate deposition situations where they may be thrown off by plaintiff’s counsel disorganized approach or confusing questions, whether intentionally confusing or not. Bill and Steve describe what witnesses should do and be encouraged by defense counsel to do when plaintiff's counsel asks bad or poorly worded questions. What must be avoided is your witness trying to fix opposing counsel's poorly phrased question and providing a response to that since, regardless of how the question is worded, if the witness provides any answer to what they think the question is, they are stuck with their answer. It is critical to practice asking your witnesses bad questions and help them understand how to respond when they are asked poorly worded questions. Get a scouting report on opposing counsel to know what their style is for questioning and practice asking questions of your witness with that approach so the witness is able to experience it in the prep and be prepared when it happens at the deposition.

Larry Hall, Partner at Chartwell Law, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. to break down the process and positive outcome of a recent trial. Larry shares an overview of the case, how mediation went, and what the demands were from the plaintiff attorney. The group discusses the jury research that was conducted for this case, how the research was set up, what the legal team wanted to learn from the research, and what some of the findings were in the research, including surprises. Bill, Steve, and Larry also talk about identifying pro-plaintiff and pro-defense jurors based on the jury research and how they used the research findings to develop juror profiles, voir dire questions, and their opening statement plan. Larry then describes the process for jury selection, how they approached their strikes, and how the jury research informed both his opening statement and his closing. Lastly, Larry talks about the curveballs they experienced during trial, how his team handled them, and his client's reaction to the final verdict. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/k0J