The Litigation Psychology Podcast

Sarah Burton, Ph.D. joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about some do's and don'ts of jury research in medical malpractice cases.

Sarah's Don'ts:

- Don't go into a focus group expecting to predict the verdict - the purpose of focus group research is to understand how jurors interpret the evidence and what does and does not resonate

- Don't start your research with a mock trial - focus groups (exploratory research) should be the first step in jury research rather than mock trials which are confirmatory research projects

- Don't argue or advocate in a focus group - the problem when not taking a neutral approach to the presentation is it invites presenter bias

- Don't assume jurors understand what you are presenting - you must assess juror comprehension before diving into their feedback

- Don't make assumptions about how witnesses will perform - testing each of your key witnesses with jurors in a focus group is critically important

Sarah's Do's:

- Do focus on the why behind the attitudes and perspectives the jurors are sharing

- Do listen more than you talk

- Do be balanced and neutral

- Do video all witnesses at deposition to test in focus group jury research

- Do test your case early and often - apply the scientific method

Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/dT4Mh3RAXQ0

James Smith, Senior Technology Consultant with IMS Legal Strategies, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss trial tech. James describes his responsibilities as a Hot Seat operator before and during trial. James and Steve talk about the different ways that attorneys work, meeting their diverse expectations, and how he prepares for different scenarios at trial. James shares a couple of war stories from trials and also provides tips for attorneys on how to help make the process of working with Hot Seat operators as smooth and impactful as possible. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/E4LMBv2IPus

Endondist Chanelle Small, DDS joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about her experience as an expert witness on dental malpractice cases. Dr. Small describes the most common types of dental malpractice cases she sees and how she approaches the reviews that she is asked to do, particularly when there are questions about causation. She also shares a couple of stories of wild cases she has worked on as well as her experience with testifying. Lastly, Dr. Small talks about how she explains complex dental terminology and topics to jurors, the difference between working with defense attorneys and plaintiff attorneys, and answers a speed round of questions about dental health. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/zl568PD5XBE

Brad Hughes, Member at Clark Hill, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about what he's seeing in the current litigation landscape including the latest on what the plaintiff's bar is doing pre-suit, early in litigation, and at trial. The group discuss the importance of selecting the right cases to take to trial and Brad shares insights on what he has learned about how plaintiff attorneys approach their cases. Brad also offers his perspective on what the defense side gets wrong and why. Lastly, Brad, Steve, and Bill talk about the use of AI in legal. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/kZl49qlmZPo

Linda Khzam joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. for part two of their discussion on anchoring and counter-anchoring. Linda begins by talking about the focus groups CSI has been doing to test voir dire questions and also focus groups testing opening statements. Linda and Bill describe the goals for the disruptive voir dire system, the questions asked of the mock jurors to help identify the questions that work and those that don't, as well as the indoctrination that is necessary to tie voir dire to opening statements. Lastly, Linda and Bill talk about setting up the topic of anchoring and counter-anchoring in voir dire and then addressing anchoring in your opening and how to handle there and in closing.