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 addressed proactively during voir dire. He outlines a process that begins with exposing the problem - acknowledging that jurors will naturally think, “How do we put a value on a life?” - and then clearly explaining that the law does not ask them to do that. Instead, jurors are asked to compensate surviving family members for measurable economic and emotional losses.

Bill walks through a step-by-step strategy for correcting this misconception: expose and normalize the cognitive shortcut, redefine the juror’s task in line with the law, and secure public, verbal pre-commitments from jurors to follow the court’s instructions. He also recommends going a step further by asking jurors to commit to keeping one another on track during deliberations.

Bill concludes by noting that this structured approach not only prevents confusion and emotional decision-making by jurors but also strengthens the defense’s position by grounding jurors in rational, law-based reasoning right from the start.

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 first thing that the defense attorney has to do in their opening is put someone or something else on trial, state emphatically what the case is about, and not talk about what the case is not about, which only reinforces the plaintiff's perspective. The goal with the opening statement is to reframe what the plaintiff presents in their opening.

The next issue Bill discusses is how lengthy opening statements that include the attorney thanking the jury for their service, talking about themselves or their client, or sharing a story from their childhood are a waste of those critical first two minutes in front of the jurors. What attorneys have to realize is that jurors don't remember facts and details; they remember how you made them feel.

Lastly, Bill talks about the importance of testing opening statements with mock jurors. Getting direct feedback from jurors and practicing the delivery and story is a critical, but often skipped, step in the trial preparation process and attorneys who do not test their opening statements with mock jurors in a focus group risk their entire case.

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. Bill talks about how to handle situations where witnesses are asked questions related to bad facts or potentially problematic information and describes a much better approach than pivoting or arguing with the questioning attorney. Bill emphasizes the importance of owning your conduct and why that's the best way to diffuse this line of questioning from opposing counsel. Lastly, Bill addresses how to help witnesses address accusatory questions without pivoting.

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.