John E. Hall, Jr., Partner with Hall, Booth, Smith, P.C. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the trial process. Bill and John discuss preparation for trial, managing stress leading up to trial, as well as, managing stresses during trial. John shares the strategic approach his team employs to prepare for trial and how he works with his trial team. John and Bill talk about how to stay focused on trial matters while there may be conversations taking place about settlement, as well as, how to deal with opinions and ideas from other stakeholders such as insurance carriers, reinsurance, excess, etc. They talk about how to handle judges that may not be favorable toward the defense, the importance of strategic objections, and managing clients at trial. Lastly, Bill and John discuss the differences between the plaintiffs bar and defense bar with regards to collaboration, the structural issues that encourage the sharing on the plaintiffs side and limit it on the defense side, and solutions to providing younger attorneys with more opportunities to learn and become better trial attorneys. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/sV8

Legal Sector Analyst and Forecaster Jordan Furlong joins host Ava Hernandez to discuss a range of topics around the future of legal including shifts in market expectations, the development of early career lawyers, and changes in the business of law. Jordan and Ava talk about how law firms must reconsider and reimagine their approach to their purpose. Jordan highlights how the development program for new associates needs to change, in particular due to the impact AI and other technologies are having on lower-level legal work. They discuss generational divides in law firms and how successful firms are managing the mix of generations in their firms. Ava and Jordan also speak about the expectations of clients today, how difficult it is for firms to adapt to these changing client requests, and the lack of trust on both the law firm side and the client side when considering changes. Lastly, Jordan and Ava talk about how millennials can position themselves to be the type of lawyer they want to be. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Rk1

As a follow-up to Part 1 (Episode #220) of what not to do in opening statements, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about what to do in your opening statements. Bill discusses a few key principles for delivering opening statements: the speed of delivery, eye contact, repetition, pausing/using silence, movement, volume, and telling the jurors what you want. Bill talks about primacy and recency effects and leveraging them in the delivery of an opening statement and also defines and describes the cognitive lens and how it should be used to frame your case. Bill breaks down why a shorter opening statement is critical and how much time should be spent on each element of the opening. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/WOQ

Michael “Mick” Williams, Ph.D., Founding Member of The Science of P/CVE & Shawn C. Marsh, Ph.D., Director of Judicial Studies and Associate Professor of Communication Studies / Social Psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno join Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss the concept of Terror Management Theory and its implications on civil litigation. Mick and Shawn define what Terror Management Theory is, how Terror Management Theory relates to the Reptile Theory and Edge Theory, and what the evidence and implications are for juror decision making related to concepts of mortality. The group also discuss some of the research and subtle ways in which jurors can be influenced to drive specific perceptions and decisions. Shawn describes how stress, environmental factors, humanizing defendants and corporations, and other worldviews also can be used to influence jurors. Mick, Shawn, and Steve discuss the role of self-esteem and anger in the litigation process and lastly talk about implicit bias and what role it plays on jurors, attorneys, and judges. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/fWm

In the first of a two-part episode, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about opening statements and what not to do in your opening statement. First, Bill explains the primary reasons why opening statements fail:

1) Attorneys don't get formal training on how to construct an opening statement; 2) Attorneys don't have an understanding of how the juror brain processes information; 3) The games our minds play on us; 4) Many attorneys have less experience and opportunity to do opening statements because fewer cases go to trial.

Bill shares what not to do in your opening statement: - Do not introduce yourself to the jury; - Don't thank the jury for their civic duty; - Don't start your opening with a corny story or a joke; - Don't discuss the role of the jurors; - Don't go on too long; - Don't read your opening statement from a legal pad or a tablet; - Don't go on the defensive.

In part 2, Bill will discuss what you should do in your opening statement.

Attorney Chris Turney of Turney LG joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss inflated settlements and verdicts. Chris describes what he believes are the factors that are influencing and effecting outsized settlements and verdicts and walks through a 4 quadrant concept to help explain what is happening. Chris defines what he refers to as direct actions, indirect actions, intentional actions, and unintentional actions and provides examples and details for each quadrant. Chris and Bill discuss verdict shaming, spike evaluations, storytelling, generating interest for the jury, and how to talk to clients about investing in weaponry. Lastly, Bill and Chris talk about preparing and training witnesses for deposition, particularly witnesses who are wrestling with stresses that are outside the litigation. Chris emphasizes the importance of getting down into the trenches with your witnesses and really understanding their perspective and challenges, plus how to deal with personal questions at deposition. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/7w6

Ava Hernandez, M.A. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D to talk about her background and how she got started in the litigation consulting field. Ava shares how she spent the early part of her career working in law firms, including both plaintiff and defense firms, then got interested in psychology, went back to earn her Masters in Clinical Psychology, and then ended up at Courtroom Sciences as a Litigation Consultant. Ava talks about what type of cases she enjoys working on and why the application of psychology in litigation is so interesting to her. She shares how important it is for her to help people and her fascination with understanding why people think the way they do and believe so strongly in what they believe in. Ava and Steve talk about how they manage feedback from jurors that may seem nonsensical since those thoughts and comments do make sense to the person sharing their perspective. Lastly, Ava shares how her experience working with plaintiff attorneys gives her an advantage when working on the defense side. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/dEs

Holly Howanitz, Managing Partner, Tyson & Mendes joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about cross-examination of expert witnesses. Holly highlights that you need think about your goals when cross-examining expert witnesses especially since experts often have more experience testifying than a fact witness. Bill and Holly talk about strategic decisions such as when to bring up "bombs" for the expert either at deposition or at trial and how to approach preparing for cross-examining an expert. Holly shares how she prepares for an arrogant expert or an expert that does primarily work for the plaintiff's side. Bill and Holly also talk about preparing experts for the defense and what that process is like. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/fO6