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