Courtroom Sciences Inc.

In real trials, jurors don’t sit through one long opening statement. They hear witness after witness, then closing arguments. Yet many mock trials still rely on extended openings—and that contaminates results. This podcast episode dives into why validity and reliability in jury research matter more than ever. Watch the full episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast #257 on YouTube and subscribe for more insights.

Preparation with witnesses who are emotional can be a significant challenge. Master the art of handling emotional witnesses with strategies from litigation psychologists that can improve testimony performance and manage witness anxiety.

Repressed memories in litigation remain controversial. Explore the science, legal battles, and impact of memory reliability on courtroom decisions in our latest blog post

Just like a blood test requires an alcohol swab before the prick, jury research needs a clean read. Without controlling for contamination, you’re not measuring reality—you’re measuring noise. Watch the full discussion in The Litigation Psychology Podcast #257 – Why Jury Research Needs Validity and Reliability (Part 2).

"Clopenings” don’t exist in real trials—and they shouldn’t exist in research. Shortcuts might feel efficient, but in practice they contaminate results. Imagine if medical research relied on shortcuts. Accuracy and reliability demand better. Watch the full discussion in The Litigation Psychology Podcast #257 – Why Jury Research Needs Validity and Reliability (Part 2).

Assessing the risks in your case is vital to strategic planning and decision making. Effective litigation risk assessment, conducted early in discovery and focused on liability and damages, can provide actionable insights to guide legal strategy and settlement discussions.