Science of Justice

Jury Analyst
  • 5,0 (2)
  • СОЦИАЛЬНЫЕ НАУКИ
  • ЕЖЕМЕСЯЧНО

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. 

  1. -2 ДН.

    Why Good Cases Still Lose

    It is rarely a single “smoking gun” in the evidence. More often, it is Drift, the slow, invisible shift where strategy moves away from how jurors actually process the case and toward how the legal team wants to see it. We also introduce a practical framework for measurable trial readiness, built around four pillars: Cognitive clarity (catching groupthink and assumption creep)Juror predictability (moving beyond generic, average juror profiles)Narrative control (stabilizing the story under cognitive load)Simulation integrity (testing deliberation dynamics, not just opinions)Send a text https://scienceofjustice.com/

    32 мин.

  2. 9 ФЕВР.

    Measure The Story Or Lose The Verdict

    We unpack why strong-looking plaintiff cases die by a thousand cuts and show how to detect and repair narrative decay with the Narrative Stability Index. Jurors build stories, not spreadsheets, so we track entropy, load, and drift to keep the case coherent and stable. • burden of proof makes ambiguity fatal for plaintiffs • echo chambers and mock trial snapshots hide decay • jurors as storybuilders seeking internal and external fit • cognitive load as the real danger signal, not anger • confirmation and confidence bias in trial teams • NSI framework: entropy, coherence load, outcome drift • operational loop: observe, structure, debrief, decide • repairs: simplify, anchor to rule-breaking, stabilize credibility • culture change: data removes ego and thanks the messenger • use NSI during discovery to shape the whole case Send a text https://scienceofjustice.com/

    39 мин.

  3. 23 ЯНВ.

    Architect The Decision, Or The Jury Will

    We argue that the “strong facts equal strong case” formula is broken, and lay out a new model where trial lawyers become decision architects who win the heart first, then the mind. Using research, case studies, and tools, we map how to design stories that resist bias, reduce cognitive load, and produce engineered settlements. • why facts alone fail under modern juror psychology • system one drives early moral judgments • confirmation bias and the Hannah study • narrative drift and the epidural defense verdict • intake as strategy and the power of language • invisible ceilings created on day one • sequential virtual focus groups over gut instinct • cognitive load management and moral anchors • moving from demographics to psychographics • using SJQs and scaled questions to reveal bias • predictive modeling to value and negotiate cases • redefining what makes a “good case” Send a text https://scienceofjustice.com/

    23 мин.

  4. 15 ЯНВ.

    Replace Comfortable Consensus With Structured Dissent

    We challenge the myth that verdicts are decided by chaos in the courtroom and show how internal biases quietly compress case value. We lay out a practical framework—psychological safety, structured dissent, red teaming, pre‑mortems, and external testing—to turn doubt into leverage. • redefining success as process rigor, not just verdict size • overconfidence and optimism bias inflating forecasts and shrinking settlements • confirmation bias creating echo chambers that ignore counterfacts • experience bias sidelining junior insights that mirror juror thinking • groupthink and the hidden cost of silence before mediation • building psychological safety and rewarding dissent • devil’s advocate rotations and pre‑mortems for early risk discovery • red teaming to map vulnerabilities and sharpen cross‑proofing • time‑boxed input and structured questions to protect partner time • mock trials, focus groups, and data to counter juror biases • diverse teams and venue‑specific valuation for better decisions • turning rigor into a client‑facing competitive advantage Send a text https://scienceofjustice.com/

    26 мин.

  5. 2 ЯНВ.

    New Definition of a “Good Case"

    We challenge the old belief that strong facts guarantee strong verdicts and show why juror psychology now sets case value. We map a path to decision architecture across intake, discovery, narrative design, testing, and voir dire to prevent invisible ceiling compression. • Three failed assumptions that undermine plaintiff strategy • Five control variables jurors’ cognitive load, belief mechanics, narrative stability, emotional velocity, internal bias amplification • System One vs System Two and why gut impressions dominate • Confirmation bias, the Hannah study, and narrative drift risk • Med-mal “unlosable” loss as a drift cautionary tale • Intake, discovery, and narrative as continuous feedback loops • Invisible ceiling compression and where it begins • When to test, what to test, and how to simplify • 18-wheeler case study moving fault from 80% to 20% • Advanced jury selection with psychographics and SJQs • Avoiding shortcuts and building venue-specific models • Redefining a good case through decision architecture Think about that decision architecture today. Where is your internal consensus setting an invisible ceiling on your most important cases right now? That’s the question you need to test. Send a text https://scienceofjustice.com/

    34 мин.

  6. 10.12.2025

    Are You Testing Your Case Too Late?

    We challenge the habit of late-stage theme building and show why persuasion in civil trials starts six to twelve months out. Using cognitive science, psychometrics, and language framing, we map a path to a single, coherent story that jurors accept with confidence. • why jurors construct stories rather than tally facts • the risk of inferred events and causal gaps • the four pillars of story acceptance coverage, coherence, completeness, uniqueness • mapping narrative features to legal elements • early theme testing as leverage and risk mitigation • iterative focus groups, simulations, and psychometric modeling • identifying and neutralising venue-specific cognitive traps • language ownership to place blame where it belongs • enveloping strategy, primacy and recency, and thematic anchoring • nonverbal dominance, rapport, and channel matching • rule of three, parallel structure, and powerful short words • shifting from conservative online judgments to decisive global judgments Send a text https://scienceofjustice.com/

    31 мин.

  7. 02.12.2025

    Two Stories That Decide Every Case.

    Why civil trials are decided by the story jurors reconstruct, not the one we intend to tell. We map the psychology behind narrative drift and share a data-driven framework to make plaintiff narratives resilient in court and in deliberation. • lawyer’s intended structure versus juror reconstruction • intuition, stress and simplification under cognitive load • gap-filling with personal experience and substitute standards • availability, defensive attribution and system justification • emotional coherence and moral alignment as decision drivers • patterned drift points: responsibility, causation, irrelevant salience, invented motives • deliberation multiplier and dominance effects in group consensus • case story alignment audit and emotional topography mapping • structural fixes: causation sequencing, explicit motive, vivid anchors • designing simplification tools and framing system rule-breaking • strategic voir dire to surface values, credibility lenses and damages caps Send a text https://scienceofjustice.com/

    26 мин.

  8. 03.11.2025

    Stop Gambling With Generic AI

    We challenge the false confidence of generic jury data and show how venue-specific psychographics, behavioral science, and calibrated AI deliver sharper voir dire, stronger narratives, and better outcomes for plaintiffs. We also unpack confirmation bias, defensive attribution, and hindsight bias with practical ways to neutralize them. • the danger of national averages and convenience samples • how local culture and venue history shape damages attitudes • why demographics mislead and psychographics predict • confirmation bias, victim blaming and hindsight bias explained • building targeted SJQs that bypass social desirability • engineering voir dire to expose latent predispositions • tailoring themes to venue-specific belief patterns • using simulations to pressure test openings and experts • examples of predicted triggers driving deliberations • ethical guardrails and maintaining human oversight Send a text https://scienceofjustice.com/

    36 мин.
См. все (36)

Оценки и отзывы

5
из 5
Оценок: 2

Об этом подкасте

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. 

Информация

  • Автор
    Jury Analyst
  • Годы выхода
    2023 - 2026
  • Выпуски
    36
  • Ограничения
    Без ненормативной лексики
  • Авторские права
    © 2026 © 2024 @2025 Science of Justice from Jury Analyst
  • Сайт подкаста
    Science of Justice