Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. dives into an often overlooked but critical aspect of witness testimony: behavior. He explains that body language and facial expression are the first things jurors process when evaluating a witness on video, and they play a major role in shaping perceptions of credibility, likability, and trustworthiness. Bill urges attorneys to coach their witnesses to maintain “job interview” demeanor — sitting upright, hands in front, and wearing a neutral, professional facial expression throughout the course of the entire deposition.

Bill emphasizes the importance of behavioral feedback during prep, not just strategic or content-based feedback. Emotional responses, especially under pressure, tend to surface first in posture and facial expression. Signs of stress, fatigue, or cognitive overload like slumping, shifting, or tense expressions can signal vulnerability to opposing counsel and trigger even more aggressive questioning. Bill warns that without proper training, these behavioral “tells” can escalate into full-blown fight, flight, or freeze responses from the witness, which can derail testimony, and which jurors can misinterpret as dishonesty or defensiveness.

To combat this, Bill recommends incorporating systematic desensitization into witness training, especially when preparing for tough topics or bad facts. Witnesses should be repeatedly exposed to negative stimuli and learn to maintain their composure through mock questioning. He also reminds attorneys that breaks should be scheduled every 45 minutes to avoid fatigue-induced behavioral breakdowns. Professional demeanor for witnesses must be practiced and reinforced just as much as content because how a witness looks and behaves can make or break their credibility.

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. dives into the rapidly evolving world of plaintiff attorney advertising and specifically how it's exploded on social media. While traditional ads like billboards and cheesy daytime TV spots are still around, many plaintiff firms are now taking a totally different approach online. Bill explains how these firms are using TikTok, Instagram, and X (formally Twitter) to push out videos that aren’t focused on big verdicts or settlements, but rather aimed at shaping public opinion and, ultimately, juror attitudes.

Bill breaks these videos down into five key themes: 1. Anti-insurance messaging, where attorneys warn viewers not to speak with or accept offers from insurance companies because “they’ll screw you”; 2. Humanization of the plaintiff firm, posting behind-the-scenes office tours, staff intros, and even lighthearted content like dance videos and trivia to show they’re just regular, likable people; 3. Educational content, where attorneys explain litigation terms and legal processes in simple, friendly language; 4. Do’s and don’ts videos, like checklists for what to do if you’re injured or filing a claim; 5. Intra-plaintiff firm competition, where attorneys differentiate themselves by claiming superior trial skills over “billboard lawyers.”

Bill notes that what’s most interesting is that these videos and messages are rarely about huge payouts but instead they’re about fairness, trust, and credibility. And it’s working. Plaintiff attorneys continue to build successful practices and jurors see these videos, and consciously or not, they come into the courtroom with biases that can be hard to shake. Bill points out that the defense bar and insurance industry are completely missing from this space, leaving the messaging one-sided. Lastly, Bill asks the questions: should the defense start countering this? And should voir dire include questions about social media exposure to these types of messages?

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