Science of Justice
Our science, your art.
You've got the vision; we've got the data.
Is our science the right fit for your practice? Is the earth round? Let’s find out. We have created a unique suite of machine intelligence solutions that provide you with the best information in your legal cases. We explore insightful results through our proprietary algorithms with experts with decades of experience working with behavioral science issues or collaborating with legal advisors for successful case outcomes.
Science of Justice
Predictive Deposition Strategies
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Predictive artificial intelligence is revolutionizing how witnesses are prepared and how their testimony is perceived by juries, creating powerful new opportunities for civil plaintiff trial lawyers.
• Four core elements determine witness credibility: perceived knowledge, trustworthiness, confidence, and likability
• Small behavioral cues like hand gestures, hesitations, or fidgeting might significantly impact juror perception
• Advanced AI tools can analyze witness testimony to identify inconsistencies and vulnerable areas
• Machine learning platforms provide venue-specific juror simulations to test how testimony will be received
• Behavioral analytics evaluate non-verbal cues, including voice quality, logical coherence, and physical demeanor
• A structured witness readiness process includes recording responses, AI analysis, and targeted coaching
• The goal is removing distractions between truthful testimony and jury comprehension, not scripting answers
• Data-informed witness preparation dramatically improves chances for favorable settlements or trial outcomes
https://scienceofjustice.com/
Imagine you're prepping your client maybe a key witness for a deposition. You know their story is truthful, every single word accurate. But there's always that nagging question Will a jury, months down the line, actually believe it when they hear that testimony? Read back.
Speaker 2:That's the core issue, isn't it?
Speaker 1:Exactly so. Today, we're really getting into the cutting edge of legal strategy. We're really getting into the cutting edge of legal strategy. We're looking at how predictive artificial intelligence is, while fundamentally changing how plaintiff witnesses are prepared and, maybe more importantly, how they're perceived.
Speaker 2:Yeah, what's really fascinating now is it's not just about getting the facts out there anymore, it's become profoundly about how those facts actually land with a juror.
Speaker 1:How they resonate Precisely.
Speaker 2:So our mission today is really to uncover some powerful data-driven strategies specifically for you, the civil plaintiff, trial lawyer. We'll explore how subtle behaviors, specific word choices, even those hidden juror biases, are being analyzed.
Speaker 1:All to build testimony that isn't just accurate.
Speaker 2:Right. It needs to be accurate, of course, but also powerfully persuasive and crucially believable to that future jury.
Speaker 1:And this fits into our broader conversation about using data ethically and effectively in plaintiff litigation really giving you that strategic edge.
Speaker 2:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:So for you, listening the civil plaintiff, trial lawyer, let's explore how you can engineer stronger. It gets tangled up with what jurors perceive them to know. You've got layers of trust, confidence, even likability, in the mix. It's complex.
Speaker 2:It absolutely is, and you know this brings up a really important question what key factors are jurors actually focusing on when they're sizing up a witness?
Speaker 1:What does the research show?
Speaker 2:Well, our research points to four core elements perceived knowledge, trustworthiness, confidence and likability. And the critical thing here is how interconnected they are.
Speaker 1:So a slip in one area can affect the others.
Speaker 2:Definitely A subtle cue that impacts, say, trustworthiness can ripple across how confident or even knowledgeable that witness seems, and often this is happening at a totally subconscious level for the juror.
Speaker 1:Okay, that makes sense. So let's break those down. First, one perceived knowledge you could have the most brilliant expert, the most informed client.
Speaker 2:Exactly. But if they can't explain something complex effectively to a layperson, you know if they're using tons of jargon, that brilliance just falls flat.
Speaker 1:They lose the jury.
Speaker 2:They lose the jury. For example, our data suggests something as simple as natural open hand gestures can subtly increase how well jurors think they understand the witness. It makes them seem more open, more clear.
Speaker 1:Or using analogies instead of technical terms.
Speaker 2:Perfect example, like a doctor explaining a procedure using everyday comparisons rather than just clinical language. It dramatically boosts perceived knowledge and, frankly, their ability to communicate effectively. It's about clarity over complexity.
Speaker 1:So presentation matters as much as substance there.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 1:Yes, trustworthiness, you said this one is absolutely critical.
Speaker 2:It really is paramount. If jurors don't perceive a witness as trustworthy, almost everything else crumbles. Our analysis shows these tiny behavioral red flags.
Speaker 1:Like what kind of things?
Speaker 2:Things like a fleeting look of worry when a tough question hits, or a subtle shrug that comes off as dismissive. Even just a slight hesitation before answering a straightforward question can instantly erode that perception of honesty.
Speaker 1:Even if the witness is telling the complete truth.
Speaker 2:Even if they are. Think about a witness who maybe says I don't recall a few, too many times, even if it's genuinely true, that pattern can trigger skepticism in a juror's mind, or you know answers that sound demeaning or obvious signs of distress. Those badly damaged the trust factor to it's the brain making a rapid judgment about sincerity.
Speaker 1:Wow. So managing those nonverbals, those microexpressions, is crucial, even for a truthful witness.
Speaker 2:Okay, what about confidence? How does a witness project that without seeming, I don't know, arrogant or overly coached?
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's a delicate balance, isn't it? The data consistently shows, jurors expect pretty quick, efficient answers. Things like leaning too heavily on notes, needing frequent breaks, or lots of filler words like ums and ums those really diminish perceived confidence.
Speaker 2:You see that a lot.
Speaker 1:You do and visible signs of distress fidgeting, maybe not making good eye contact. Those also suggest uncertainty. Imagine a witness just clicking a pen over and over.
Speaker 2:Distracting.
Speaker 1:Very distracting, and it can unconsciously signal unease or maybe a lack of conviction to a juror. Even if the words themselves are strong, these seemingly small things carry enormous weight in how confident, and therefore credible, a witness appears.
Speaker 2:It's amazing how those little cues consistently impact credibility and mock jury exercises we run. Okay. Last one, likability. This one sometimes feels a bit softer, maybe less important in a formal courtroom setting. It often gets underestimated, yeah, but our data confirms likability can be just as strong, sometimes even stronger, than the other factors in boosting credibility.
Speaker 1:Really Stronger than trustworthiness.
Speaker 2:In some contexts. Yes, it's not just about being nice. The data suggests likability can actually trigger positive neurochemical responses in jurors. It makes them more open, more receptive to your client's narrative.
Speaker 1:So what does likable mean in this context? Agreeable.
Speaker 2:It means being perceived as agreeable, yes, but also respectful, reasonably pleasant, maintaining good eye contact even when you're disagreeing or being challenged. Jurors want to feel the witness is genuinely trying to be helpful and honest.
Speaker 1:Can you give an example?
Speaker 2:Sure. Think about a witness who manages a slight, appropriate smile, maintains a calm, open posture, even during a really tough cross-examination. They often come across as more credible because they seem less defensive, more genuine, more human.
Speaker 1:Okay, so beyond just these observable behaviors you're suggesting, there's a deeper psychological layer. Advanced machine learning tools can help us understand, like understanding persuasion principles, how the brain actually processes information.
Speaker 2:Precisely, we're moving beyond just gut feelings about a witness. We can leverage predictive AI tools for objective data-driven insights into those psychological drivers. It's about anticipating how a juror's brain not just their conscious thoughts will likely react to the testimony.
Speaker 1:Almost predicting the neurological response.
Speaker 2:In a way, yes, and this also taps into how jurors subconsciously weigh risk and reward, which might explain why they don't always follow purely logical paths and respond so strongly to these delivery nuances. You know, traditional witness prep, it has limits.
Speaker 1:Like what.
Speaker 2:Well, there's information overload for the lawyer, cognitive biases creeping in we all have them and often a lack of truly realistic simulation. Advanced machine learning tools can act as this intelligent objective partner. It provides data-backed insights and dynamic simulations that, frankly, human observation alone just can't match consistently.
Speaker 1:Okay, so how does this AI partner actually help us refine deposition questions and simulate responses? How do we predict how those words will land, maybe even down to that neurological level you mentioned?
Speaker 2:Well, it can break it down into a few key methods that are proving really effective.
Speaker 1:Great, let's hear them.
Speaker 2:Okay. Method one AI-powered question strategy development. Think about this. Ai tools can meticulously analyze a witness's entire record. We're talking prior deposition transcripts, emails, internal memos, everything.
Speaker 1:Looking for what specifically?
Speaker 2:It's programmed to flag potential inconsistencies, contradictions or areas where the witness might be vulnerable. This allows you, the lawyer, to draft really customized deposition outlines. It can even suggest specific lines of questioning designed to uncover crucial details or test credibility.
Speaker 1:Or, I suppose, to prep your own witness for likely attacks.
Speaker 2:Exactly. It works both ways. For instance, imagine the advanced AI platform cross-references a witness's previous deposition testimony where they denied knowing about a key project meeting. Then the system instantly flags an email showing they not only attended, but presented at that exact meeting. This isn't just a simple keyword search. The large language model tool understands the context.
Speaker 1:So it gives you a ready-made impeachment point for an opposing witness.
Speaker 2:It gives you a powerful list of potential impeachment topics. Yes, or, just as importantly, it highlights those critical areas you need to address proactively with your witness during prep. It helps prevent those damaging gotcha moments. It's like having a hyper-efficient paralegal who never sleeps and finds every potential weak spot.
Speaker 1:That sounds incredibly useful. What's the next method?
Speaker 2:Method two involves leveraging simulated juror feedback and behavioral analytics. This is where things get really futuristic, almost.
Speaker 1:Okay, I'm intrigued.
Speaker 2:So platforms exist now that can run mock deposition excerpts, video snippets, usually through virtual jury simulations. But here's the kicker they use venue specific juror personas.
Speaker 1:Meaning, not just generic jurors.
Speaker 2:Exactly. These aren't generic profiles. They're built from real world demographic data, psychographic data, attitudes, beliefs, mirroring the likely jury pool in that specific trial location.
Speaker 1:Wow. So you're not just guessing how some average juror might react, but how a juror in, say, miami-dade County versus rural Iowa might react, versus rural Iowa might react.
Speaker 2:Precisely. That's a massive advantage. It lets you test how jurors in your actual target venue might perceive a witness's delivery, their tone, pace, even specific word choices. You get concrete, data-backed insights before the real deposition even happens.
Speaker 1:Can you tailor it further?
Speaker 2:Yes, you can often test against different juror archetypes likely present in that venue maybe skeptical jurors, empathetic jurors, analytical jurors to see how the testimony lands across different segments and optimize the delivery for maximum persuasive impact across the board. For example, if your venue data shows jurors their value directness, the simulation tool might flag answers that are too rambling.
Speaker 1:And suggest ways to tighten them up.
Speaker 2:Exactly Concrete suggestions for simplification and clarity.
Speaker 1:Okay, that's the simulated feedback. What about the behavioral analytics part?
Speaker 2:Right. This often uses really advanced systems, sometimes involving video analysis, to evaluate non-verbal cues. We're talking voice quality. Is it shaky? Monotone? Does the pitch rise under pressure?
Speaker 1:Things you might notice but it's hard to quantify.
Speaker 2:Exactly. It also looks at logical coherence in answers, emotional control, physical demeanor, maintaining good posture, avoiding fidgeting, those subtle shifts in facial expression or eye contact when they're challenged. These tools can pinpoint moments of perceived dishonesty, confusion or vulnerability that even a seasoned lawyer might miss in real time.
Speaker 1:And the machine intelligence simulation tool doesn't just spot problems, it helps fix them.
Speaker 2:That's the goal. Ai-driven coaching provides real-time, objective feedback during prep sessions. It might flag say excessive blinking when discussing damages or talking way too fast when explaining a timeline.
Speaker 1:And suggest concrete adjustments.
Speaker 2:Yes, concrete ways to minimize those distractions. It acts like an incredibly observant, tireless and entirely objective coach. It gives feedback that human coaches might sometimes overlook or struggle to articulate consistently.
Speaker 1:That level of objective feedback seems invaluable. So bringing this all together for you the civil plaintiff, lawyer, listening what's a practical way to apply this? How do you integrate machine intelligence into witness prep for maximum credibility?
Speaker 2:Okay, let's walk through a practical method. It often combines voice recording, ai analysis and targeted coaching. Think of it as a kind of structured witness readiness process.
Speaker 1:Okay, skip one.
Speaker 2:It starts with an initial session. The witness records their responses to key questions the basic who, what, why, when, where they detail critical facts, dates, physical evidence involved, specific conversations and, crucially, the ongoing impact this has had on their life.
Speaker 1:Just telling their story, naturally.
Speaker 2:Yes, but the instruction is usually to provide clear, truthful, factual statements. Speak naturally, avoid exaggeration. The goal is to capture their authentic baseline narrative.
Speaker 1:Then the AI gets involved.
Speaker 2:Right. Stage two is analysis. That recording is processed by the advanced tools. It generates analyses, maybe word clouds, of key concepts, evaluations of emotional tone and sentiment shifts throughout the narrative. It suggests areas for content optimization, maybe making things more concise or impactful.
Speaker 1:So it's spotting patterns and potential issues in the raw testimony.
Speaker 2:Exactly. For instance, the system might detect, say, unconscious vocal hesitation or uncertainty when discussing specific dates, even if the words sound confident. Or it might flag where the emotional tone seems mismatched with the events being described, sounding flat when talking about something traumatic, for example.
Speaker 1:Which gives you a data-driven map for the coaching session, not just relying on your gut feeling.
Speaker 2:Precisely which leads to the critical third step, the follow-up session. The witness first reviews their transcript and the AR's analysis report. Then you, the attorney, discuss the system's identified strengths and weaknesses. You provide constructive feedback, but it's anchored in that objective data.
Speaker 1:And this is where you also work on the nonverbals.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. This session is primetime to intensively focus on nonverbal communication appropriate attire for the deposition, posture, body language, eye contact All those things we know significantly impact your perceptions. Body language, eye contact all those things we know significantly impact your perceptions and, importantly, the witness usually gets that insights report to review and practice with helping them internalize the feedback.
Speaker 1:So it sounds like the focus is really on coaching for impact, not scripting testimony or changing the underlying truth. It's about removing static right.
Speaker 2:You hit on a crucial point there. It's entirely about removing distractions, confusion and any friction between your witness's genuine, truthful account and the jury's ability to understand and believe it.
Speaker 1:And does this help with preparing for cross-examination?
Speaker 2:Immensely. These tools allow for them to maintain composure and credibility, to stand firm and stay consistent even when things get heated. It's not about making them robotic. It's empowering them to deliver their authentic truth effectively, even under fire.
Speaker 1:And does this data-backed prep help align the deposition testimony more tightly with the overall trial strategy you plan to present later?
Speaker 2:the deposition testimony more tightly with the overall trial strategy you plan to present later? Yes, absolutely. These machine-intelligent insights can help you proactively identify and address potential weaknesses or inconsistencies in a witness's story during direct examination prep, well before they surface unexpectedly in the deposition or at trial.
Speaker 1:How so.
Speaker 2:Well, it can even surface risk points hidden in documentation, maybe records that look cold or inconsistent or incomplete on their face. This prepares your witness to explain why that is honestly helping jurors connect with the human story behind potentially confusing paperwork. Ultimately, this dramatically improves your chances of a favorable settlement or a better trial outcome, because your witness is prepared not just to state facts but to connect their truth with the juror's understanding.
Speaker 1:That was a really insightful look at how predictive AI is genuinely reshaping witness preparation for civil plaintiff lawyers. It's clear these tools aren't about replacing your legal skill or judgment.
Speaker 2:Not at all.
Speaker 1:But about enhancing it quite dramatically, allowing you to advocate even more effectively for your clients.
Speaker 2:It really is about moving beyond just intuition, however experienced, towards a truly data-informed advocacy. These tools give you the power to understand your potential jury pool with, frankly, unprecedented precision. To refine your questions with frankly, unprecedented precision To refine your questions, refine deposition questions, simulate how responses will land and prepare your witnesses for maximum impact. It's all geared towards ensuring their truthful testimony is not only clear, but perceived as profoundly credible. It's about empowering your client's voice so it's truly heard and believed.
Speaker 1:So if you're a civil plaintiff, trial lawyer, listening, remember this Data can't replace your gut instinct for justice or your unique ability to tell a compelling story, but it can absolutely sharpen those tools.
Speaker 2:Make them more effective.
Speaker 1:Exactly Give you a clearer, more persuasive path to justice for the injured, for the unheard. When you combine the power of these AI tools with your core mission, you really empower jurors to see and, just as importantly, believe the truth of your client's story. It's not about hiding flaws, is it?
Speaker 2:No, it's about honoring the story, giving it the clarity and the credibility it truly deserves. Well said and this discussion, of course, is part of our larger series focused on using data ethically and effectively in plaintiff litigation we definitely look forward.
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
