Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares ideas on how to upgrade your voir dire by applying measurement. One of the primary purposes of voir dire is to elicit information and Bill talks about ways to extract information from jurors to get accurate responses. Bill discusses how to handle oral questioning during voir dire, including the use of a 0-10 scale and asking jurors to give one reason for their number. After going over the scientific methodology for this approach to data collection, Bill talks about the art aspect of voir dire: the setup of the question, the answer set/options given to the jurors, and what to do with their answers. As an example, when you get negative information from a juror, you don’t want to punish that juror with your reaction because you want to identify other jurors who share that same perspective so you can strike them. Reacting negatively to a juror’s response could shut down other jurors who may feel the same way but want to avoid your negative reaction. Lastly, Bill talks about how to do this in Federal court or if you are really short on time.
Full Episode Transcript
[00:14] Bill Welcome to another edition of the Litigation Psychology Podcast brought to you by Courtroom Sciences. Dr. Bill Kanasky here. We’re in the headphones today ’cause I upgraded some software and, uh, I’ve installed the soundboard. So, we’re going to test this today. This is going to be fun, right? Always got to upgrade the podcast. Um, now today, just to let you kind of foreshadow here, right, today what we’re going to talk about is a way to up your voir dire game. I’ve been doing a couple different podcasts on, uh, more effective voir dire, and I want to share another trick with you. All right? But before I do that, let’s test the soundboard, right? So, if you’re a guest on the podcast, right, and you say something correctly, here’s what you’re gonna hear: “Aha!” You, you like that? But you know, if you say something that I vehemently disagree with, then, you know, then… [sound effect]. Now I may say something that no one likes, which you know, that does. However, however, I say a lot of things that you do like. So, when that happens, I… [sound effect]. Okay, now I, I downloaded a bunch of stuff. Now my favorite one, right? This is the favorite, you ready for it? “You can’t handle the truth!” Uh-huh, uh-huh. You like that? You like that? Should I go “Liar, Liar,” Jim Carrey? “I object, Your Honor!” Oh man, the fun I am going to have with this. What else do I want to do? Yeah, ex— maybe say maybe you’re old school, right, and you like the little Homer Simpson: “D’oh!” Yeah, yeah. This is good stuff. I’ve been playing with this. It’s really, really good stuff.
[02:18] Bill So let’s talk about, uh, voir dire. And I’m going to end this podcast with a couple health tips, right? You know me, I’m a health nut. And, um, I have found some things that have just been life changing. I mean, absolutely life changing. And I want to share those with you because, you know, you may be attorneys or claims people—I’m a consultant—but you know, we work a lot on our computers, a lot with our phones, and boy, that can lead to a lot of back problems, neck problems, things like that. I have a couple solutions there too. Again, life-changing, that I’m going to share with you.
But let’s talk about this voir dire thing. So, let’s say in voir dire, something that you want to—I think a popular topic—something that you certainly want to get feedback on from jurors is going to be their level of corporate distrust, right? Everybody’s talking about this. Everybody’s talking about this, and it’s out there. That’s no secret. How do you really accurately measure this? Well, let me tell you kind of the wrong way. I say the wrong way, the ineffective way. Because so let’s just back up. So, what you want to do in voir dire is you want to elicit information. You want to make jurors feel comfortable. You want to give them options, and you want them to be honest with you. And so how you ask a question, uh, can largely determine what type of feedback you’re going to get.
So, kind of the old way, and I think the ineffective way to do this, is to simply ask jurors, you know, “Hey, um, if you distrust,” right, this is in voir dire, “if you distrust corporations, you raise your hand.” Maybe a couple hands raised, okay. “Well, juror number five, why, why do you distrust corporations?” Stuff like that, right? Um, not really effective. And I think a lot of people that would like to raise their hand maybe won’t raise their hand because of the yes or no dichotomous answer set that you’ve provided. Okay?
[04:20] Bill So there’s a better way to do this. So let me tell you a better way. But I wouldn’t necessarily go here because it can be kind of confusing. This would be really good for a supplemental juror questionnaire, however. Okay, so there’s something called a Likert scale, a Likert scale. Now everybody sees this, this is L-I-K-E-R-T. And if you’ve taken a statistics class in college, uh, you certainly know about this. Okay, it’s actually, it’s not a “lie-gert” scale. I, I think Likert sounds funny, but that’s actually how it’s pronounced. It’s called a Likert scale, not “lie-kert.” But this is pretty much your one through five scale, right? So, this is very effective for a juror questionnaire, but not quite as effective in, um, oral, um, uh, voir dire.
A Likert scale, what is it? Okay, one through five scale where you’re going to give them a piece of information, typically something like an attitude or a belief system, and you’re going to ask them, “Okay, do you strongly disagree, do you disagree, are you neutral, do you agree, or do you strongly agree?” So, it’s, it’s pretty much an agreement scale that gives a list of options. Okay? Um, really, really effective for questionnaires. So, if you’re going to have questionnaires in your, um, jury selection process and you can get one of these in there, really good way. You know, it gives, it gives juror options. But asking this in oral voir dire, kind of confusing. Um, not the best way to do it. It’s, it’s a big time waste. You have, you have to keep repeating the signal, I’m sorry, the keep repeating the scale.
So, um, but it gives the jurors options to pick from. Okay, again, orally I think this is a lot tougher, but if you do have a, a supplemental juror questionnaire, you put the attitude and release system right. Um, so for example, if you had a statement about Corporate America, right? “Corporate America puts, uh, profits over safety.” And then you have the, the Likert scale. Okay, do you strongly disagree with that? Do you disagree with that? Are you neutral? Uh, do you agree with that or strongly disagree? You’ll get some really good data out of that on the questionnaire. Again, I would argue orally that’s really not the way to go.
[06:56] Bill But I’m going to tell you, uh, uh, what to do, uh, exactly with that right now. Here’s one of the debates about the, uh, Likert scale. Whether you’re doing this, again, I wouldn’t do it orally. I do this on a questionnaire format. And if by the way, if you’re doing focus groups and mock trials, these are really good answers, that’s to put on your questionnaires, um, before, during, or after your, um, project.
The big controversy behind the Likert scale is do you put the third option, the neutral option in there? Because many jurors will kind of gravitate towards the neutral, uh, and you can force them out of that neutral. So, what I would recommend in a jury selection format, in questionnaire format, is I would eliminate this. I would make it a one to four scale, not one to five. I would eliminate the neutral option so they can’t pick it and you’re kind of forcing them to one side or the other. Um, because I really don’t think anybody’s neutral on, on anything. But if you provide them the neutral, they like to, they love to use it. They love to use the, the, the neutral option. And that’s not going to give you any in useful information in jury selection. So, I’d say skip that.
So, if you’re going to use this during—if you’re going to use the Likert scale during a supplemental juror questionnaire—you put in the, um, item that you want to measure, okay, like the “profits over safety.” And there’s other measures you can do this all day, right? You make multiple questions like this and then have the uniform answer set for them on the questionnaire, which would be strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree. Okay? And those would be one through four. That’s the way you do it on a questionnaire.
[08:44] Bill However, I don’t think that’s really the way you want to do this orally. So orally, orally, what do we want to do? Well, I would argue, and we’ve tested this over and over again, this, this really, really works and, and it’s something that you need to, uh, play with. Uh, so if you are doing a focus group, for example, or mock trial and you’re having a discussion with jurors, you can test this. Oh, by the way, let’s take a step back here. One of the best ways to practice voir dire is in your focus groups. So mock trials, you’re interacting with yours, ask these types of questions, particularly at the end of the project, right? Most projects at the end, you kind of have a Q&A or whatever or a debriefing session. Ask these types of questions and, and practice. See what types of information you get. Okay?
So, it’s a two-part system here to measure any of these variables, right? You want to measure again the “profits over safety,” right? Or, or how much does a juror distrust corporations, right? So, the better way to do this would be to say, “Okay, now, um, I would like to know…” So, you’re the attorney, right? You’re talking to the jurors in voir dire, you’re going to say, “I would like to know if you, to what extent you distrust large corporations. Okay? And what I’d like you to do, I’m going to go one by one.” Okay? And that’s the key. You got to go one by one. This is not a hand raising question. You’re going to go one by one and you can do this very quickly, by the way. Go one by one and “I would like you to give me a, a rating from zero to 10.” Zero… okay, this is how much dis—so zero means, “Okay, I, you know, totally trust corporations, I have zero distrust.” Right? 10 would be, “I totally 100%…” So, remember, it’s a percentage, right? 0 to 100%. How much do you distrust? Yeah, 10’s going to be 100% distrust. And you can use any point on the scale from 0 to 10. “Juror number one, let’s start with you. What would be your number on 0 to 10 on how much you distrust large corporations?” Get their number.
[10:59] Bill Now look at, look, look at the amount of information right now that you have. Okay? Because that number… because remember with the Likert scale, it’s pretty much four options here. You have, you have 11 options. You have zero to 10. So, zero is a option. So, you got 11 options you’re giving them. Okay? So, more information. And they could pick three, they could pick five, they could pick seven, whatever. Okay? So, you get the number.
The second step of this process, which is the most important part, is you just say, “In one sentence…” You always give them parameters, or it’s going to take all day. “In one crisp, clean sentence, what’s your top reason for that number? Why? Why are you picking, why are you picking the number seven?” And let them articulate why. And then, you know, you’re taking notes, or your colleague is taking notes, or your jury consultant’s taking notes. Okay?
That is the very best way to get information about corporate distrust. Or really any—let’s say you’re working on a med mal case, and you want to shift that to, “Okay, how much distrust do you have in the Healthcare System?” or in the way, um, hospitals provide care. Any, right, anything, right? You can, you really mix and match. Trucking cases: “How much distrust do you have in the, the trucking industry?” You can just—it doesn’t really matter what industry you’re in, you just have to mix and match what you’re measuring. Okay?
And so, what we’re going to do is, again, you’re going to give them these 0 to 10 scale. You explain it to them, you explain it up front, and then you probably want to explain it with the first couple jurors. Then by juror four, like, everybody’s on the same page, right? So, you’re probably have to repeat the instruction a few times. So, step one is get the 0 to 10. And then step two is in one brief sentence, right, what’s the main factor in that number? What, what’s what inside you, why, why are you picking that number? Is it a personal—it could be a personal experience, could be a belief you have, could be a certain attitude, um, could be something you read or something you’ve experienced like, like what is it? Okay? And then you’ll see as you go from juror to juror, you’re going to get different numbers and different reasons.
[13:18] Bill Now, this is far better than the yes/no question. Okay, number one, far better, uh, because you’re going to get more information. But most importantly, number two is, it’s much less pressure on a juror to give a number between zero and 10 than it is to force them into a dichotomous response of yes or no, right? It’s pretty extreme. Okay? So, remember if you want to get more information out of jurors, give them the flexibility.
All right, now theoretically, theoretically you could do the very same thing in the juror questionnaire. So, you have a supplemental juror questionnaire, you could use the, the Likert scale with the four options and then have a follow-up question of “why” and let them write it in. It’ll be limited space, so they’re going to have to give you something that’s really to the point. Okay? But you could also do the same exact thing is you could say, “On a one to—or I’m sorry, zero to 10 scale, how much, how much do you distrust large corporations?” Put a space for the number, and then below they have to justify. So, you can use that in the questionnaire as well. The key is, is taking pressure off of the jurors, giving them options so that they’re not locked in. They feel very pressured when, when they’re locked in. Okay? Um, so you give them yes or no’s or agree/disagrees, uh, that tends to shut jurors down, and what you want to do is open them up.
[15:07] Bill Now there’s a—that’s the science behind this, right? Now the art behind this is the follow-up. Okay? So, kind of verbally and non-verbally, you have to be interested in what their number is and particularly the rationale for the number. You have to be interested. You have to show interest in that regardless of what it is. So, they may give you a good number. They may say, “Two.” You go, “Oh, two! Why? Okay, well, uh, give me your rationale for why you picked two.” “Okay, well, uh, I work for a large corporation, they’ve been very good to me. Um, my, I have family members and friends that, uh, work for large corporations and generally my experience has been, you know, very positive, so my number’s two.” And you go, “Oh, okay! Well, thank you, juror number four.”
Now you get down to juror number 10, and juror number 10 says, “9.9.” You go, “Oh, okay!” It’s the same response, right? Because remember, you’re looking for the negative. If you’re a defense counsel, you’re looking for negative information. The worst thing you want to do is to go, “Oh, 9.9, jeez,” because then nobody else is going to want to give a 9.9. You’re looking for the 9.9, right? I mean, that’s what you’re doing. So, when the 9.9 comes out, or the eight—really anything over above a seven, ’cause let’s be honest, if you get a number of six or below, it’s actually a positive number for you on corporate distrust. I mean, come on. Okay? You get a seven or higher, that’s somebody telling you, “I don’t trust corporations, and I have a reason.”
[16:43] Bill Okay, when they give their—when the 9.9 gives their reason, say, “Yeah, they’re greedy. They’re greedy, they only care about money, they don’t care about regular people,” and they start just hammering away. You have to look interested and appreciative of that information just like you were from the one that gave the two rating and go, “Oh, okay! Well, hey, thank you.”
So, any—here’s the key, there’s the absolute key to all this. That’s why voir dire is so hard, because there’s multiple balls you got to juggle to do this. It’s… the question’s like 10%. It’s the setup of the question, then what you do after the question. Okay? You have to positively reinforce the bad things they’re saying so that you will identify other jurors and get them to give you the same information and not hide it from you.
So, when they give you the bad information about why they hate corporations, you go, “Hey, thank you! You know what? Hey, fair enough, fair enough. You know, thank you so much for sharing that information with me, I appreciate that. All right, let’s go, juror number 11, right?” And you have to behave in a way that positively reinforces the juror that gave you very, very negative information. Because if you do the other thing, you go, “Oh boy, 9.9, jeez. Okay, juror number 10, uh, I mean 9.9… boy, that’s, that’s pretty extreme. Like, why do you feel that way?” Really what you’ve done is contaminated the rest of the jury, like, “Well, I’m, I’m not giving a nine, you know, I, I am a 9.9, I’m not going to say 9.9. God, look at, look at what he’s going to do to me afterwards,” right? Or what she’s going to do to me afterwards.
[18:34] Bill Okay, so there’s an art and a science to voir dire, and I talk a lot about how to set these questions up. That’s a whole podcast in itself is—it’s not the questions. The questions are not even half the battle. It’s like 10 or 20%. It’s the setup of the question, the answer set you’re giving them—like what are the options here? 0 to 10 is much better than yes or no. Okay? And then once they give you the answer, what, what are you doing with that? What are your follow-up questions? How are you… because remember, I mean, in best case scenario, I mean, you’re setting up cause challenges. You’re setting up cause challenges with the judge. So, you want to get as much of this negative information as possible.
And if you inadvertently… okay, remember operant conditioning, right? Operant conditioning, where we at? We have positive reinforcement and we have punishment. There’s no negative reinforcement in there. It’s positive reinforcement or punishment. You can inadvertently punish the juror’s response by going, “Uh, 9.9?” right? You’ve just punished the juror’s response. You don’t even know it. And what—remember what happens in operant conditioning by definition? Positive reinforcement, you’re going to increase that behavior. Your kid comes home, they’ve got straight As, you give them 50 bucks, they’re going to keep doing well in school. You’re, you’re, you’re reinforcing that behavior, you want to increase that frequency. Kid comes home, they’ve got D’s and F’s, you take away the cell phone, they get pissed at you. Now you’re punishing that behavior, you want to eliminate the D’s and F’s, right?
[20:25] Bill So it happens in voir dire with operant conditioning, and you don’t even know you’re doing it. That’s why you got to think, okay, when you get negative information from a juror that’s negative towards your client, you don’t want to inadvertently punish that because then other jurors won’t open up to you. Instead, you actually want to reward, you want to positively reinforce that behavior by saying, “Hey, thank, thank you for that information. That, that’s, that’s very…” these kind of side comments, right? “Yeah, that’s very helpful. Thank you so much.” And then all the other jurors hear that and go, “Oh, wow, you know, it’s okay to, God, speak my mind. It’s okay to do that, right?” Whereas if you do it the other way, all the other jurors be like, “He—I don’t know if, I don’t know if I really want to tell the truth here. I don’t know if I want to be so open.”
Okay, so again, voir dire, uh, I do, by the way, if you want me to do a CLE for your firm or your company or whatever—probably the law firm, this is more for attorneys as opposed to claims people—email me, call me. In one hour, I could teach you all this. All of it. There’s a lot of science behind it and there’s, there’s, there’s an art to this. There’s a lot of psychology behind it on how you’re doing the voir dire. It’s not just the questions. You could have the best questions in the world, and if you don’t set them up right, you don’t have the correct answer set and options, and you’re not using operant conditioning after the answers, you’re going to screw this up with the best questions in the world.
[22:15] Bill Okay, basic podcast today, but it’s really, really important. Start to use in your oral voir dire, start to play. And again, just call me, email, email me. I’m happy to help you with this. If you email me, say, “Hey, Bill, can I have 15 minutes? I have a—there’s something I really want to ask, I have a jury selection next week, I want to ask the jurors X, what are the best ways to ask this? Can you—” just call. We can talk for 15, 20 minutes. I’m not going to charge you, and I’ll lay have some various options for you.
Okay, now where does it get tricky? Well, everything I just told you is beautiful when you’re in state court and both sides are getting multiple hours for voir dire. But now let’s talk about federal court. Now you all know where I’m going with this. Federal court, and the judge says, “Yeah, I’ll give you both 45 minutes for voir dire.” You’re like, “Whoa, whoa, oh, oh, oh! Hey, hey now, hey now, Your Honor.”
[sound effect]
It’s not going to work. You like how I did that? It’s not going to work. And the judge says, “Well, that’s just the way it’s going to be.” And then you know, actually all the attorneys are going to be sitting out there, you know, nobody’s going to be happy. Nobody’s going to be happy with this, right?
[23:50] Bill However, you’re stuck with what you’re stuck with. So now you got to figure out, okay, what are the, the most important questions? I could probably… if I only have an hour, 45 minutes, sometimes 30 minutes, right? I got to get this question out. You may have to pick one question to do that with all the jurors.
Okay, now another way to do this if you’re really, really short on time—this is not the best way—but you could divide the 10-point scale up into thirds. Okay? Okay? And then you do the hand raising thing because you got to save time. So, in federal court, the hand raising questions are typically the best because you’re, you’re battling the clock, right? And you can say, “Okay, is anybody a zero?” Raise your—no one’s going to be a zero, right? Okay, so if you’re one to three, four to six, or seven to 10. Those are the three options on corporate distrust, right? Or large corporations to the extent you don’t trust them. And you explain the scale. Okay? If you’re a one to three, or a four to six, or a seven to the 10.
That’s the question, ladies and gentlemen. Now I’m going to start with… remember, it’s always about to set up. “Now ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to start with because there’s three categories you can raise your hand to, and you got to raise your hand to one of them. Now I’m going to start with the one to three group. If you’re in the one to three on distrust of large corporations, please raise your hand.” Let the ones to threes raise their hand and then very quickly go around and get their very quick reason. “Okay, next group. Okay, kind of the middle ground. You’re in the four to six category. You’re not the one to three, you’re not the seven to 10, you’re in the four to six category. Now I want you folks to raise your hands.” A subgroup, okay. Same thing, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. “Okay, now the seven to 10. Okay, like you really distrust corporations. Okay, now I want you all to raise your hands.”
Okay, that’s going to be your back doorway into this when you are struggling with time. Now if time is on your side, you’re in state court, you have all day. Okay? You have all day, just go with the zero to 10 scale and go individually. It, it’s worth its weight in gold. You’re in federal court, you may have to do some other things here because you’re battling against the clock.
[26:21] Bill All right, very straightforward podcast today, very straightforward podcast. So now I’m going to do my rant, and I’m going to rant about the pain in my neck and the pain in my hips and the pain in my back and what I have done to fight this off. Um, what we do—whether it be laptops or, or phones—and you’re doing that stuff all day, it’s really unhealthy for you, right?
Two life-changing things that I did—and I’ve always talked about this and just never got around to it, I finally did it—see if it make… and oh my, my God! Both 10 out of 10, speaking of my 0 to 10 scale, 10 out of 10 effectiveness. Number one, as you can see as I’m moving around: the standing desk. Oh my God, the standing desk! My hips and lower back, oh man, so much better. Standing desk, move around, right? You can jog in place during one of your, you know, Zooms if you had to. I mean, I’m serious, standing desk is the real deal. Now one of the negatives here is—if you just stand there for three hours at a time, now your feet are going to be killing you, your knees, right? So, you got to move around, you got to stretch out, you got to shift your weight during breaks. You know, make sure you’re walking around. And then I keep a, like a little, my UNC, uh, bar stool right here. Then during breaks, I may have a seat, or even I may just pull up my bar stool and kind of sit for a couple minutes just on the bar stool, not like a regular desk chair. Oh, amazing, amazing how this has been life-changing and just so much more. And I mean, I mean I’m pretty active, so I mean like during breaks I will do stretches, I will do my kind of bodyweight squats to kind of stay loose and stuff like that. Highly recommended, highly recommended. And like, like you all, I spend a lot of time on airplanes. Those seats will kill you. Okay? Standing desk, I’m just telling you, if, if you don’t do it, you’re out of your mind. It, it’s really, really, uh, I think key.
[28:22] Bill Okay, the second thing that’s been life-changing, which again, I’ve heard about this for years and just said ehh… so my wife’s been having some back problems, she’s going to the doctor, going to physical therapy, and all these healthcare professionals are saying, “Do you have an inversion table?” She’s like, “Yeah, I’ve heard of them, I’ve always heard of them,” and they’re all saying like, like it’s a life changer, you got to get it. It’s going to take it… it, it decompresses your spine, it’s going to naturally stretch you up by using gravity, right? So, you lay down on this table, it tilts you—you don’t even have to go full upside down. You could go, I think 60 degrees. 60, 70 degrees is like the magic number, there’s a lot of research behind it.
So, uh, about a month ago I say, “Screw it, we’re getting an inversion table, right?” I want to help my wife, but then I’m thinking like, this can’t be so bad for me either. Okay, this can’t be so bad for me. I get the inversion table. Oh my God! I used it, I’ve used it most days of the week for one month. And you start it like… because remember it’s kind of weird, right? You have to work yourself up to a certain point, right? Because you really want to be in this thing like 10 minutes, I think is a sweet spot, 15 is the max. Like 10 to 15 minutes is your sweet spot. I start at like two minutes and then three minutes. And so, like after a week I could get to the 10 to 15 minutes. Oh my God! I’d say after two weeks of using this thing regularly, when I woke up in the morning, not stiff. Walking around all day, not stiff. So that combined with the standing desk, I, like, I feel like I’ve shaved 10… because I’m 51 years old. I gotta tell you, once you hit that five up, boy, that pain, that stiffness in your joints. I played football for 10 years, I mean, I got some bumps and bruises, trust me, I feel it. That, that ankle sprain and that knee injury from 1990, 91, I, I feel that every day. Oh, my, the combination of these two things, it’s just been—I feel like I’m in my late 30s right now, and I’m not joking around. I would not come on the podcast and share this if that wasn’t true.
[30:42] Bill So I think a lot of us are in the same boat on this because of the amount of computer time, sitting, your phone. Okay, oh let’s end with that. Number three game changer. My… I went to the doctor, I’m like, “Doc—like, my neck’s killing me, my neck’s killing me, my neck’s killing me.” And I’m doing all these things and he’s like, “You’re looking at your damn phone too much.” You know your head weighs eight pounds, and when you tilt it down like we do—like if I’m on the airplane, right, you look at your phone, you’re looking down, you’re looking down several hours a day. The physics of that, right, the physics of that eight pounds going forward puts a lot of stress on your neck. I have all kinds of neck pains and headaches.
So I go, “What do I do?” He goes, “Well, two things.” This is what the, this is what this neurosurgeon taught me. He goes, “Number one, when you look at your phone, it’s like you’re going to look like an idiot, but trust me, it’s going to take away your pain. Look at your phone…” I’ll show you on the screen— “look at your phone at eye level. Don’t hold your phone down by your waist. Look at your phone right so you don’t have to bend your head down.” I’m like, “Well God, yeah, like that’s not easy, and then your arm gets tired, right?” But he’s like, “Just trust me, just you have to work that into it or at least half the time hold your phone higher so your, the, the angle your neck’s not going down.”
[31:49] Bill But then what I got here, I’m going to show you this—I forget, I don’t have the brand name for this, okay, this is a cervical neck stretcher. It’s made of a, it’s like a foamy material kind of like a Nerf football. Remember the Nerf footballs? And this thing, this is kind of like a hard, it’s like a foam, a pretty hard foam. It’s foam, it’s got some flexibility to it. It’s like a, for lack of a better term, it’s, it’s a pillow. Okay? And for 10 minutes you lay on this, and what this does is it puts that C-curve back in your neck. And so, you can stretch your neck out every day the right way and get that right. Takes away a lot of pain.
All right, so for you serious people out there, hey, you know you got, you know, whether your birthday is coming up or holiday or whatever, splurge! Get yourself a standing desk. Okay? Because remember: no health, no nothing. I’m very big on this. No health, no nothing. Get yourself a standing desk. Consider the inversion table if somebody has one, go use it a couple times, you’ll be shocked. And this, this, this cervical neck stretcher, oh, oh my God! So, I solved a lot of my physical problems by making some, some changes, but they all work. So, I wanted to share that with you.
So that is the truth. That is the truth. Those three things, I mean, just working miracles for me. And I got to leave you, you know, with, with one: “You can’t handle the truth!” See, I, I think you can handle the truth. I really, really think you, you can. All right, so remember, oral voir dire, there’s better ways to do this. There’s better ways to do this, and if you contact me, I will teach you how to do this. Again, I’m happy, I have a one-hour CLE on this. Get on Zoom, I can talk to your whole firm and teach you exactly how to do this stuff, because you don’t want to get outmaneuvered in voir dire. You could be making a lot of mistakes you don’t even know you’re making with the operant conditioning. Okay? There’s a way to be better. There’s a way better. I’m happy to teach you about it.
So, thank you for participating in this edition of the Litigation Psychology Podcast brought to you by Courtroom Sciences. I am Dr. Bill Kanasky, we will see you next time.
Be confident in achieving superior litigation outcomes. CSI has the expertise, track record, and capabilities to help you win.
