 |
The Litigation Psychology PodcastAuthor: litpsych
The Litigation Psychology Podcast presented by Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI) is a podcast for in-house and outside defense counsel and insurance claims personnel about the intersection of science and litigation. We explore topics of interest to the defense bar, with a particular emphasis on subjects that dont get enough attention. Our hosts are experts in Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, and scientifically-based jury research with a wealth of knowledge about psychology, science, jury research, human behavior, and decision making, which they apply in the context of civil litigation. Language: en Genres: Business, Science, Social Sciences Contact email: Get it Feed URL: Get it iTunes ID: Get it |
Listen Now...
The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 286 – The Myth of Valuing a Life: Reframing Juror Thinking
Episode 288
Monday, 10 November, 2025
Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses a recurring problem in wrongful death cases: jurors’ tendency to mistakenly believe their job is to assign a monetary value to a life. Bill explains how this cognitive shortcut often leads to inflated damage awards because jurors default to emotional reasoning rather than following the legal instructions. To prevent this, Bill emphasizes that the issue must be addressed proactively during voir dire. He outlines a process that begins with exposing the problem - acknowledging that jurors will naturally think, “How do we put a value on a life?” - and then clearly explaining that the law does not ask them to do that. Instead, jurors are asked to compensate surviving family members for measurable economic and emotional losses. Bill walks through a step-by-step strategy for correcting this misconception: expose and normalize the cognitive shortcut, redefine the juror’s task in line with the law, and secure public, verbal pre-commitments from jurors to follow the court’s instructions. He also recommends going a step further by asking jurors to commit to keeping one another on track during deliberations. Bill concludes by noting that this structured approach not only prevents confusion and emotional decision-making by jurors but also strengthens the defense’s position by grounding jurors in rational, law-based reasoning right from the start.
