The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 16

Nuclear verdicts - Part V

CSI - Courtroom Sciences Inc

This episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast is all about the art and science of jury selection. CSI Jury and Litigation Consulting experts Dr. Bill Kanasky and Dr. George Speckart discuss how rules for jury selection are drastically different across not just venues but across judges and how these differences need to be managed. They also cover some of the myths and assumptions about what makes a "plaintiff juror" or a "defense juror", the importance of a scientifically-valid supplemental juror questionnaire, how simple demographics such as political leanings aren't reliable indicators of how a juror will lean, and more.  




Podcast summary:


Dr. Bill Kanasky

Welcome to another edition of The Litigation Psychology Podcast; Dr. Bill Kanasky with Courtroom Sciences. This is episode five of our nuclear verdict series and our third one with Dr. George Speckart, jury decision making expert with over 30 years of experience. And today we're going to focus on an area of litigation that I think many defense counsel admittedly tell me that they're uncomfortable with. And that's the whole art and science of jury selection; which is something that I think many attorneys are uncomfortable with. I think the rules for jury selection are drastically different across not just venues but across judges. It seems like the rules are different across the board and so particularly for us as consultants that makes life difficult when you're trying to help pick a jury in California versus Philadelphia versus Florida. Very, very different roles and very different setups. Then you get the whole state versus federal court issue and it's risky. So, we're going to bring in Dr. Speckart right now. George, you there?

 

Dr. George Speckart

Hello everybody.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

I think they did a study, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the ABA do a study with thousands of thousands of defense attorneys and they had to rank order essentially what they felt they were the most competent and comfortable at as far as skills in the courtroom. And I think that survey pretty much stated that when it came to jury selection, that was essentially ranked last or it was ranked at the top depending on which way you look at as the most uncomfortable thing.

Dr. George Speckart

That's an easy one. I mean that's a softball lob right there. And the reason it's so straight forward is that jury selection is prediction of behavior, which is the highest level of scientific achievement. You know, if you go back to your high school classes and you've got Newton sitting under the apple tree, he sees the apple fall. So, the first step in the scientific method is observation. And the second step is hypothesis. You generate a hypothesis about what you're seeing and then the third step is theory. You develop and test your theory and then if that theory survives the testing and you get to the next stage, then you're at prediction. So, that’s the final stage of the scientific method. And yet people think they can just walk into jury selection and go ‘Oh, I like that guy or I don't like that guy’. And yet something is gnawing at them in the back of their mind saying, ‘okay, I like the guy, but does that mean he's going to vote for me?’ And the answer to that question is no, it doesn't. It's very easy to see why, when people want to be sort of amateur psychologist that can work sometimes, you know, with themes ‘I think this theme is effective; I don't think that theme will work’ that that works sometimes, but it doesn't work very well when you're at the level of prediction of behavior.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

That's a very good point. And I picked the problem inherently, the problem with jury selection is you have a lot of pressure, there are a lot of time constraints and like I said in the intro, the rules and the parameters are vastly different from venue to venue. Can you talk a little bit about that as far as, particularly as a consultant, the type of pressure you're under when the rule book is pretty much different from case to case to case.

Dr. George Speckart

I was at a symposium, or no, it was just a meeting, I guess, at one of the largest law firms in Atlanta and they had a 90 year old judge there and he was talking to all the young lawyers, you know, part of being good in this business, just remembering what's effective and stealing it if you need to, and then using it later. And so I'm going to steal what this guy said to all these young lawyers. He said to them, the best advice I can give you is that if you've got a jury selection coming up, get to that judge’s courtroom in a prior case and watch closely how he does it, because every judge does it differently. Some of them wouldn't dream of allowing the jury questionnaire; others expect a juror questionnaire. Some of them allow you to argue during voir dire and others just put a tight reign on you and won't let you say anything except for specific pointed questions. Some allow no attorney conducted voir dire at all. And judges could do whatever they want. I mean, this is a monarchy we're looking at here. It's built into our system that way. Yeah, and that's why it varies so much because they can do whatever they want.

Dr. Bill Kanasky

So over 30 years of practice, George, tell the audience the most common errors, mistakes that you see defense counsel making during voir dire and jury selection.

Dr. George Speckart

I think relying on hunches and intuition instead of scientifically derived criteria for prediction of behavior. In other words, you have to recognize and face squarely the fact that you are trying to predict behavior. You're trying to say, what is this guy going to do later when he gets in the jury room and start deliberating with 11 other people or five other people or whatever it is. And one of the things that lawyers resort to are these feelings of ‘I liked him or she likes me’. And I hear that all the time in jury selection. And let me tell you something about that. Jurors will like you and they will stab you in the back. There's a very, very weak correlation between liking for the attorneys and voting for their side or for their client. And a Stringfellow case was 1992 in Southern California is a toxic landfill.

Dr. George Speckart

And we had done a great job for the defense. There was $113,000 verdict for 14 test plaintiffs. I mean, my colleague said that's barely enough to pay for the plaintiff's phone bills. So we had a great result there and did the post-trial jury interviews and the foreman of the jury was talking about the lead defense attorney and saying, “This guy was so lousy, I thought he was purposely trying to lose the case.” That's the side he voted for. And the opposite: Etsy versus Burlington Northern 1989 at Beaumont, Texas. There was this guy from San Francisco, his name was Fred Firth. Just an amazing attorney. Just larger than life, charismatic. Everybody looked forward to seeing him come into the courtroom every day. He always had a joke; jurors loved him. They awarded $334 million in treble damages. So, $1.02 billion against his client. So, I like him or I like her, she likes me…..Forget it, it doesn't work.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

How about the reliance, cause I hear this every week. You know, minorities are always going to vote plaintiff and Republican or Democrat, there's all these demographics that I think attorneys are very comfortable with and they cling on to them. Can you talk a little bit about kind of like the iceberg, you know, graphic that we have is, what's the appropriate use of demographics and jury selection?

Dr. George Speckart

It's very limited. There are some venues and some types of cases where ethnic categories predict pretty well, but as a general rule, it doesn't work very well. And you know, people are always looking for these demographic indicators because they're so simple and easy to use, but it's just more clever than correct. It doesn't work out that way in a lot of cases. And then of course, you've got to deal with Bateson challenges if you're a defendant, if you're going to start striking based on ethic categorizations.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

No, you're right. You're absolutely right.

Dr. George Speckart

Plus, you're likely to overlook bad or stealth jurors that are not minorities.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. What is your, and I know we're still collecting data on this, but I was asked yesterday by an attorney who's been practicing for 37 years out in California. He's paranoid over the millennial juror. What do we know about the millennial jurors? And, what data do we have to show what types of decision making that they come to a trial.

Dr. George Speckart

Again, that's a demographic characteristic really, which is how, you know, what year were you born and what is your sort of cohort they call it. And those, for the same reasons, are not reliable predictors. In order to really have effective prediction, you have to get under the surface and start looking at personality temperament and the way people construe the world generally in a general sense. Deeper, low underlying attitudes and values, all of that kind of thing. Belief systems. You can't possibly say that everybody born between this date and that date has the same temperament or the same personality structure or the same values. It just doesn't work that way, I don't think. There are people who swear by it, but I don't think, I have not seen at least, you know, the scientific methodology put into place to really test it in a conclusive manner.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

So, tell our audience and again, over 30 years of experience, what is your specific approach to jury profiling?

Dr. George Speckart

Okay, this one's going to take a little while, but I think it'll be worth it. Started back when I first got involved in this industry. You know, there are different kinds of psychologists, for example, social psychologists look at how people react to a situation in the same way. Looking at the situation as the determinant or the causal factor. Personality psychologists, on the other hand, look at how different people see the same situation in different ways. In other words, what are the personological attributes or characteristics that determine how an event is going to be construed. That was my area of specialization, personality measurement. So, I've always been interested in how different people see the same thing in different ways. Now we started working on toxic cases back in the 80s, and we tested a lot of statements like, ‘have you ever been exposed to a toxic substance?’

Dr. George Speckart

And we tested to see if they were predictive. We found out, for example, that statement was not predictive. Then we asked, ‘are you still concerned about this?’ If you had said yes to that question, in other words, if you've been exposed, are you worried about it? That question did predict. So, what we started getting onto here was it's not the experience itself, but it's how you construe the experience that is predictive. And that led us into looking at deeper underlying strata of stable temperament and personality constructs that might really hold the key to predictive validity. And this is very important in jury selection because you can find out about experiences. You know, if someone's had the same experience as the plaintiff, someone's going to say, 'well, they've had the same experience as the plaintiff, so that'd be a dangerous juror, right?’ Well there are also jurors who had the same experiences as the plaintiff, and they'd say, ‘well, that when that happened to me, I didn't get rich. So why should he?’

Dr. George Speckart

You know, why should that person get rich? So, what is it that causes a juror to say from the same experience, I'm going to empathize with that person versus that guy got rich and I never got rich and he's going to get rich, so he doesn't deserve it cause I didn't get it. You know what's causing that fulcrum? What's causing people to go one way or the other on that, having had the same experience. So, we look at the underlying strata of stable temperament dimensions of personality constructs. And over time we developed a group of them which identify what we call the Universal Plaintiff Juror. These are the traits that cause individuals to resonate with the idea of a complaint. And they're operative across different kinds of cases. So it doesn't matter if you have a complex business case, an antitrust case or a sexual harassment case or a toxic case; these jurors with these personality constructs will vote for the plaintiff because they are the kind of people that would have victim mentality who resonate with the idea of complaint.

Dr. George Speckart

And those personality constructs are vulnerability, instability, cynicism, depression, and arousability. So that's a cluster of personality constructs that cause this universal plaintiff juror syndrome. Now, in order to measure those things, you can't really administer personality measurements in court in a supplemental jury questionnaire, but you can look at the behavioral correlates of those kinds of personality constructs. So, for example, cynicism, which is the tendency to see the world as inherently predatory, sinister or malevolence. Those kinds of people have consistent problems in the workplace; no upward mobility, a victim mentality. They also tend to have life events. You know, sociologists call life events. Things are constantly happening to me. That sort of thing. Depression and arousability. Those people have health problems. They're accident prone; legal problems, that kind of thing. Of course, then instability, the extreme form of instability is schizophrenia. So, a lot of this is just psychopathology; but those are the things we look for, the correlate these underlying personality traits and constructs that signify the presence of what we call the universal plaintiff juror.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

That's really interesting stuff. Can you talk a little bit more about particularly cynicism, I have always found some of the most helpful questions either in voir dire or in the supplemental juror questionnaire are questions about employment. I think you can tap into a lot of these things when you get a juror talking about their job, their job history, particularly the ones that are jumping around. Can you talk a little bit about how you can really get some solid information from jurors when asking them about employment issues?

Dr. George Speckart

Yeah. You're dead on about that because workplace problems is an area that is really one of the most fruitful; you know, have you ever been harassed, discriminated against, passed over for a bonus or promotion, wrongly terminated, all of that stuff. Now what happens though when you try to measure this is that normal people have workplace problems too. In order to differentiate the real plaintiff juror, the real cynical victim mentality plaintiff juror, you have to have a response format that differentiates whether this has happened to you maybe once or whether it's a recurring pattern. Because that differentiation is what distinguishes the plaintiff juror from your normal, okay juror. So, what you have to have is a response format that says no never, yes once, yes, more than once. And it's the yes, more than once category that predicts. And this has all been tested. We've done it with juror questionnaires, we've done the statistical analysis. It's right there.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

You know, back to the experiences, I think you're right, I think a lot of attorneys ask those questions, which are obvious about for example, if it's a medical malpractice case, you're going to ask jurors, you know, has anybody here had a negative experience with a healthcare provider? And you know, some hands will go up, some hands won't. But what I find is where sometimes attorneys struggle is with the proper follow-up questions because one of my favorite follow-up questions is, ‘are you satisfied with how the situation was resolved?’

Dr. George Speckart

Yeah. And now does that still bother you is another good one.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Yeah. Because if they still have a chip on their shoulder, that's a big problem. Talk about nuclear verdicts. I mean, I think that's where a lot of this comes from is you’ve got jurors that are angry with things that have happened in their lives. They have not gotten over it. Whereas I've seen several jurors say, well yeah, it was an issue then. That was a couple of years ago. But you know what, I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I've gotten over it. Or you know, the doctor apologized or whatever and they don't have that chip on their shoulder. So, can you talk a little bit about the, the failure to ask these specific follow up questions can really lead you down the wrong path.

Dr. George Speckart

Yeah. And when you're working with a client, you have to teach them to ask those things and teach them the whole idea behind what we're doing here. Because they need to understand that in the heat of the moment when they're up there alone on the courtroom floor, there's nobody to help them. And they're the only one that can ask these questions. And they need to understand that plaintiff, jurors are the ones that like to just wallow in this stuff. You know, they're still, they nurse that chip on the shoulder, they carry the grudge and they enjoy doing it and they're probably going to carry it to their graves. Whereas defense jurors are the ones that get up, dust themselves off and then keep walking.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Yeah. Those are very different types of people. I'm going to bring up a controversial topic. And every time I bring this up with a client, they get terrified. But can you talk about, in many of these cases, particularly if it's catastrophic injury, there's always a day in the life video. I tell my clients, you need to fight to play parts of that video in voir dire. There's no way you're going to be able to properly assess your jurors if they don't know what they're going to see. Can you talk a little bit about, whether it be videos or pictures or having the plaintiff in the wheelchair in the courtroom, about testing the most uncomfortable things about your case in front of the jurors and how that can actually be a benefit to you?

Dr. George Speckart

Yeah. well for one thing, you get them desensitized if they see it early. That's always helpful of course. But the other thing is you get to ask them and it's very important how you phrase these questions here. Cause if you phrase the question properly, you can get the data you need. The first thing you need to do is to assure the jurors that it's okay to have biases and sympathy and have feelings about this. And you know, I've heard some good voir dire to the effect of they tell the jury panel that they're inquiring with the voir dire of your questions. They say, you know, if this case were about sympathy, we could all go home right now because we feel sympathy too. But that's not what this case is about. But you need to ask the panel, does anyone here think they might have some trouble with the judge's instructions to completely disregard sympathy? In other words, it has to be phrased in such a manner that even if there's the slightest inkling that sympathy would get in the way that they feel comfortable admitting to that.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Oh, that's a very, very good point. Another area and the plaintiff's bars really changed regarding this area. But again, it's an area that makes defense counsel really uncomfortable. How do you bring up - well actually I guess the question is, do you even bring this up and if so, how do you do it? Cause I'm a big fan of this bringing up, assuming you can get away with it, cause I know the plaintiff's bar is doing that. Bringing up the topic of damages in voir dire.

Dr. George Speckart

Same thing. If you get them desensitized to it early, it can be very effective. But also you can kind of get a feel for where people's biases lie right at the beginning. And sometimes you can even get them excused for cause if they show enough of a bias. In terms of like showing right up front what's going on and using that for a tactical advantage; I had an incident once where it was a railroad crossing case and it was an elderly gentleman who driving up to the railroad crossing and he got hit and killed by the locomotive and the attorney asked a panel of about 60 or 70 people how many people just knowing that fact would blame the elderly driver. About 40% of the venire, 40% of the people in the courtroom raised their hand and say, yeah, I'd have to blame the driver. The judge excused them all for cause. So, what was a slam dunk is now a horse race.

Dr. Bill Kanasky

Yeah. That's really amazing. I find it, and again, I think it's more of an emotional barrier for defense counsel to ask some of these. Cause I've always heard, which I do not believe this is true, the whole, well, I don't want to poison the well. If some juror starts ranting all these pro-plaintiff arguments in front of the other jurors, that's going to poison all the other jurors. I think it's the opposite. I think you're going to get your causation strike probably. And if you can't, then you use a peremptory. But I think one of the best follow-up questions after you spot say juror number five going on this rant about how much they hate corporations, right? The best follow up question to that is, A, you're going to thank them excessively for that opinion because they've just identified themselves as very pro plaintiff or maybe even high damages. The second question following that, which is so simple, no one asks it, is does anybody else here agree with juror number five? And three more hands go up.

Dr. George Speckart

Yup. You know I was talking earlier about the area of psychology which I chose to study, which is personality measurement. And the very first thing I was concerned about when I was a graduate student getting my degree at UCLA was does the act of measurement actually create a change in what you're measuring? In other words, does a question or an item in a questionnaire affect the result of what you're measuring by its form or its structure or its content? And the answer was consistently no. In other words, you cannot create attitude change just by the act of measurement.  Which is the question that attorney was concerned about poisoning the well, quote unquote. It's much more important to find out what their biases are, what their sympathies are right then and there, and use that opportunity to de-select who you need to de-select at that point. That’s much more important to do that than worry about whether your question is going to affect them. And in fact, another point that reinforces all this is that we started asking people in post-trial jury interviews, do you remember voir dire? Do you remember what was said? Did it have any effect on you? Jurors couldn't even remember voir dire by the time of the end of the trial came. So you've got to measure what you have to measure and not worry about whether it's going to affect people.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

And particularly with some more sensitive topics that you're probably not going to get much honesty in a room full of people that maybe don't want to raise their hands and they don't want to discuss maybe something embarrassing or something sensitive. Can you talk about the use of supplemental juror questionnaires and how they give you very different levels of information as compared to just oral voir dire?

Dr. George Speckart

Oh man, that's an hour right there. First thing I got to say is that people relegate the supplemental juror questionnaire to a position which is far too low in terms of priorities. In a huge case, I have hesitant to use the name of the case, but this was a dream team of some of the best lawyers in the world and we found out that they were using the plaintiff's version of the supplemental juror questionnaire instead of the one that we wrote and asked the lawyers what happened. They said, we just dropped the ball. In other words, they forgot to push it with the judge. And as a result, that judge ended up using the one submitted by the plaintiffs, which put us behind the eight ball. But point number one is, this is probably the most important tactical move you can make in a case because who hears the case could be easily argued to be the most tactical, important tactical part of the case.

Dr. George Speckart

And the supplemental juror questionnaires the most important determinant of figuring out who it is that you're looking at in terms of psychological measurement. So, there's a lot of inhibition, as everyone knows in the courtroom, people sit on their hands, they're afraid to say things. Let me give you an example. This was a couple months after the Exxon Valdez and it was a, and another Exxon case in Los Angeles federal court. And a woman had written in her juror questionnaire that she joins environmental groups because she believes in their causes. And then the Exxon attorney  in voir dire, says to this perspective juror, why did you write that you like environmental groups, the Sierra Club? And she says, “Oh, I like the hikes” and she would not admit in front of the oil company attorney that she was an environmentalist. And we've seen that over and over again when people do not say the same thing in open court as they're willing to admit in the supplemental jury questionnaire.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

That's a great point. And I tell you and you remember some of these, I mean some of these just absurdities that have popped up in juror questioners, but I've seen people, jurors fill these questionnaires out and openly admit to racism, sexism, being homophobic, and you'd never get that stuff orally. And so I think it's a wise decision to have, and I don't know what the statistics are, George, but do you find that most judges are open to supplemental juror questionnaires?

Dr. George Speckart

It varies. I had one person tell me once, we're going on asbestos case in Maryland, and the lawyer said to me, judges don't allow supplemental jury questionnaires in Maryland. I said to her, we just had a case in Maryland where we used one and she said, well, they don't allow them in asbestos cases. What's going on here is she just really didn't want to ask the judge. And as far as supplemental juror questionnaires, there are no statutes precluding or prohibiting them in anywhere in the United States. So, it's really a matter of like what Wayne Gretzky says, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. You have to just go for it. And then this question of how long it's going to be, the judge will decide, the judge will tell you what he'll allow and you have to work within those parameters.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

That's another excellent point you make. And we're about to wrap this up, but I want to end this with a couple more points. Can you talk about your general approach to jury selection when you are in state court versus federal court? The last time I consulted on a case in federal court, and I'm not joking, this is in Cleveland. Northern District of Ohio. We sat down, I'm sitting next to the attorney. The judge looks at us and says, each side has 30 minutes…Go.

Dr. George Speckart

Yeah, that's what it's like in the Eastern district.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

I mean, how do you….so I asked the defense attorney, and this is a nice quiz which I like to give during my speeches. As I said, if you could only ask three questions, you only had time for three questions, which three questions would you ask? Cause I know which ones I would ask, but can you talk about how, if you are put in that position where you have under an hour you can't be screwing around with your questions. You've got to get to work and you better go to the right area of questioning.

Dr. George Speckart

Which three questions would I have if I could only choose three?

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Yeah, that's tough. I've been in this position before and it's not going to be are you a Democrat or Republican? That's not going to be my question.

Dr. George Speckart

Well, it would probably be the workplace questions we talked about, anyone here ever been ever had problems at work or a serious dispute with an officer of a corporation.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Or boycotting or any of those extreme behaviors where I think you're trying to tap into that cynicism variable, right? Cause I think that, based on our discussions, that's one of the most predictive variables out there.

Dr. George Speckart

Yeah. another one would be getting opinions about lawsuits. Now if you look at opinions about lawsuits, plaintiff people think that lawsuits are necessary to keep corporations honest, to protect the victims of the world. Defense people think that there's so many lawsuits out there because no one wants to accept responsibility for what happens to them. So I try and probe that area of just opinions about lawsuits. And also, just burden of proof is a really interesting one to look at because you can establish that plaintiff has the right to bring everybody into court. But in exchange for that right, they have a duty to provide the burden of proof. And if you get jurors to understand that barter system, then they expect real proof from the plaintiff. And it's surprising how many cases don't have that proof in them, they're just real plaintiffs just rely on kind of anger and suspicion.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Yeah. And I tell you what, one of my favorite questions, my favorite of all times is the question, who here has really badly wanted to file a lawsuit but you didn't go through with it. I think that's a huge one.

Dr. George Speckart

Yeah. I had that sort of under my list of attitudes toward lawsuits because most of these plaintiff jurors, they've had something in their life where they want to file a case but they just don't have the means to do it.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Yeah, those are dangerous. Those are really dangerous people. So, to wrap up this particular episode, George, what general advice can you give defense counsel regarding jury selection? Cause everybody again is in a panic about the nuclear verdict. What can they do to avoid nuclear verdicts specifically in relation to jury selection?

Dr. George Speckart

Well remember what I said earlier about that judge who said get there in the case before; understand how this judge does it. So that's one. It's also I think very important to use a jury consultant with both experience and who uses scientific methods, has scientific background that understands which items actually predict and which do not. Then get a jump on opposing counsel with the supplemental juror questionnaire. Remember that the supplemental juror questionnaire is not a collection of items that seem reasonable or look nice but has to have items in it that are proven scientifically to actually be predictive.

Dr. George Speckart

And then finally, remember that cause challenges are one of the most important things that can happen in a case. Every time you get a cause challenge granted, it's like having a free peremptory or like taking one from the other side. All of this requires a lot of proactive planning to get these instruments in place; to get your supplemental juror questionnaire in place, a jump on the other side approved by the court, inclusive of all these scientifically predictive items that you want, plan out voir dire so that it's not duplicative of the supplemental juror questionnaire. You know, judges don't like it when the juror questionnaire and voir dire are duplicative or redundant. And just have it strategically set up so that you've got the best working system possible that's based on scientific method and not conjecture.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

Excellent stuff. Okay, I lied. I have one more question for you, cause I think this is an important one. Talk a little, take two minutes and talk a little bit about how the use of a properly done mock trial can assist you and clients in jury selection.

Dr. George Speckart

You know, I think the best way, usually those types of projects have a sample size that's too small to scientifically test predictive validity of an item. But what those small sample projects do give you is ideas for voir dire questions that would be meaningful to jurors. You hear people talking about their experiences and what they've done in the past that caused them to think that the way they're thinking now and then you think, ‘Oh, I could use this in a good voir dire question, I could fashion a voir dire question that would really be revealing based on these kinds of experiences.’ If, if you really want research that can help you test scientifically, whether items will predict behavior in terms of verdict orientation, you really need about a hundred people or so, and there are ways to design those. But the mock trial research with sample size of say 24 people can just be a good springboard for creative ideas.

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

That's awesome. Well, Dr. George Speckart, thank you so much for being on the podcast again and that was a great information you provided the audience and I don't think this nuclear verdict topic is going away anytime soon. So I have some other ideas for podcasts and we'll have you back on as soon as we can. All right, take care man.

 

Dr. Bill Kanasky  

All right, there you have it. Episode five complete jury selection in the nuclear verdict era. This is Dr. Bill Kanasky signing off again. Visit courtroom sciences.com if you'd like some useful articles and information about reptile, about nuclear verdicts, about jury selection, about witness preparation. We have a ton of white papers on there. We have blog posts on there, and then you have these episodes to listen to. So again, we will see you next time and thank you very much.