Insights from recent episode analysis
Audience Interest
Podcast Focus
Publishing Consistency
Platform Reach
Insights are generated by CastFox AI using publicly available data, episode content, and proprietary models.
Most discussed topics
Brands & references
Total monthly reach
Estimated from 2 chart positions in 2 markets.
By chart position
- 🇺🇸US · Social Sciences#1685K to 30K
- 🇦🇷AR · Social Sciences#4410K to 30K
- Per-Episode Audience
Est. listeners per new episode within ~30 days
7.5K to 30K🎙 ~2x weekly·40 episodes·Last published 6d ago - Monthly Reach
Unique listeners across all episodes (30 days)
15K to 60K🇺🇸50%🇦🇷50% - Active Followers
Loyal subscribers who consistently listen
6K to 24K
Market Insights
Platform Distribution
Reach across major podcast platforms, updated hourly
Total Followers
—
Total Plays
—
Total Reviews
—
* Data sourced directly from platform APIs and aggregated hourly across all major podcast directories.
On the show
From 17 epsHost
Recent guests
No guests detected in recent episodes.
Recent episodes
The Juror Who Decided Before You Spoke
Jun 18, 2026
37m 11s
Why Behavioral Science Beats Courtroom Folklore
Jun 10, 2026
36m 53s
Find the Friction Before the Defense Does
Jun 3, 2026
39m 36s
The Human Weight of Plaintiff Advocacy
May 27, 2026
32m 14s
What Jurors Actually Hear During Closing Arguments
May 21, 2026
31m 43s
Social Links & Contact
Official channels & resources
Official Website
Login
RSS Feed
Login
| Date | Episode | Topics | Guests | Brands | Places | Keywords | Sponsor | Length | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/18/26 | The Juror Who Decided Before You Spoke | Send us Fan Mail What if the most important decision in your case was made before opening statements even began? Jurors do not enter the courtroom as blank slates. They arrive with beliefs about personal responsibility, corporations, doctors, lawsuits, and money that shape how they interpret every witness, document, and argument they hear. In this episode, we explore the hidden psychological filters that influence juror decision-making and why facts alone are rarely enough to change a mind. ... | 37m 11s | ||||||
| 6/10/26 | Why Behavioral Science Beats Courtroom Folklore✨ | behavioral sciencetrial strategy+3 | — | Science of Justice | — | behavioral sciencetrial lawyers+3 | — | 36m 53s | |
| 6/3/26 | Find the Friction Before the Defense Does✨ | case lifecycleplaintiff cases+3 | — | — | — | plaintiff casesdefense advantage+3 | — | 39m 36s | |
| 5/27/26 | The Human Weight of Plaintiff Advocacy✨ | plaintiff advocacyemotional burden+5 | — | legal system | — | plaintiff advocacyemotional weight+5 | — | 32m 14s | |
| 5/21/26 | What Jurors Actually Hear During Closing Arguments✨ | closing argumentsjuror perspective+4 | — | Jury Simulator | — | jurorsclosing arguments+6 | — | 31m 43s | |
| 5/13/26 | Find the Counter Story Before the Jury Does✨ | jury perceptioncase evaluation+3 | — | Science of Justice | — | jurycase theory+5 | — | 34m 54s | |
| 5/6/26 | Why Experience Needs a Pressure Test✨ | plaintiff litigationlegal proof+4 | — | Science of Justice | — | plaintiff litigationlegal proof+3 | — | 42m 09s | |
| 4/29/26 | From Jury Consultant to Analyst Team: Why the Model Must Evolve✨ | jury consultingcivil litigation+3 | — | Analyst Team Model | — | jury consultingAnalyst Team Model+3 | — | 35m 14s | |
| 4/20/26 | Why Strong Cases Bleed Value Early✨ | case valueliability+4 | — | — | — | strong casesplaintiff cases+3 | — | 26m 41s | |
| 4/4/26 | The Hidden Risk in “Strong” Cases✨ | jury behaviorcase strategy+3 | — | plaintiff trial teamsjury | — | jury interpretationcase confidence+3 | — | 46m 45s | |
Want analysis for the episodes below?Free for Pro Submit a request, we'll have your selected episodes analyzed within an hour. Free, at no cost to you, for Pro users. | |||||||||
| 3/17/26 | When Facts Fail: The Litigation Intelligence Stack✨ | litigation intelligencejury decision making+3 | — | — | — | litigationjury+5 | — | 35m 06s | |
| 3/9/26 | Invisible Injuries, Visible Justice: Transforming Brain Injury Litigation✨ | brain injurylitigation+4 | — | Science of Justice | — | brain injurylitigation+6 | — | 27m 11s | |
| 2/28/26 | What Lawyers Miss When They Skip the Science✨ | trial strategypsychological forces+3 | — | Science of Justice | — | trial readinesspsychology+5 | — | 33m 21s | |
| 2/21/26 | Why Good Cases Still Lose✨ | trial strategyjuror behavior+3 | — | — | — | Driftcognitive clarity+3 | — | 31m 49s | |
| 2/9/26 | Measure The Story Or Lose The Verdict✨ | narrative decayjuror decision-making+3 | — | — | — | narrative stability indexburden of proof+4 | — | 39m 21s | |
| 1/23/26 | Architect The Decision, Or The Jury Will✨ | trial lawjuror psychology+3 | — | Science of Justice | — | strong factscognitive load+3 | — | 22m 37s | |
| 1/15/26 | Replace Comfortable Consensus With Structured Dissent✨ | verdict decision-makinginternal biases+4 | — | Science of Justice | — | verdictsinternal biases+5 | — | 26m 23s | |
| 1/2/26 | New Definition of a “Good Case"✨ | juror psychologycase value+3 | — | — | — | juror psychologycase value+5 | — | 34m 17s | |
| 12/10/25 | Are You Testing Your Case Too Late? | Send us Fan Mail 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... | 30m 32s | ||||||
| 12/2/25 | Two Stories That Decide Every Case. | Send us Fan Mail 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 justifi... | 25m 42s | ||||||
| 11/3/25 | Stop Gambling With Generic AI | Send us Fan Mail 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 mis... | 35m 56s | ||||||
| 10/23/25 | 7 Fatal Focus Group Analysis Mistakes | Send us Fan Mail Ever walked out of a focus group riding high, only to realize later you were chasing a mirage? We dig into the seven hidden mistakes that quietly sabotage plaintiff focus groups and show how to replace seductive but shaky feedback with data you can actually use at trial. We start where most strategies fail: recruitment. Convenience samples from Craigslist and generic online panels don’t mirror your jury pool and are now riddled with bots, farms, and professional survey taker... | 38m 04s | ||||||
| 10/16/25 | From Gut Feel to Juror Science: How Data Quality Decides Plaintiff Outcomes | Send us Fan Mail We argue that pretrial research only works when the data is venue-specific, scientifically vetted, and integrated end-to-end. We show how bad samples lead to undervaluing or overestimating cases, and how psychometrics, experimental design, and hyperlocal platforms sharpen strategy and jury selection. • stakes of pretrial data quality for plaintiffs • two core risks of flawed research undervaluing and overconfidence • seven common mistakes in focus groups and simulations • ve... | 35m 52s | ||||||
| 9/25/25 | Beyond Generic AI: Why Specialized Legal Tools Matter | Send us Fan Mail Generic AI tools present serious risks for attorneys including hallucinated legal facts, confidentiality breaches, and strategic failures that can lead to sanctions and case dismissals. • Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT create "hallucinations" - confidently stated but completely fabricated legal information including non-existent cases with fake names and citations • Courts have sanctioned attorneys who submitted AI-generated fake cases, as in Mata v. Avianca and c... | 45m 17s | ||||||
| 9/19/25 | Your Brain is Sabotaging Your Case (And What To Do About It) | Send us Fan Mail Trial lawyers face hidden forces that can undermine even meticulously prepared case strategies, including noise, bias, and psychological blind spots that distort judgment in ways that significantly impact outcomes. Understanding these invisible threats and implementing structured processes to manage them is essential for building more resilient, effective case strategies. • Noise refers to unwanted variability in judgments that should be consistent, creating a "lottery effec... | 29m 07s | ||||||
Showing 25 of 49
Pitch Fit is a Pro feature
See how bookable this show is for guests, which brands already advertise, the per-episode ad value, and the best-fit guest and sponsor profile. The numbers are blurred on the free plan.
How readily this show books outside guests like you.
How proven this show is for host-read sponsorships.
For Guests
ProFor Advertisers
ProUpgrade to Pro to unlock guest cadence, sponsor categories, fit scores, and per-episode ad value for this show.
Chart Positions
2 placements across 2 markets.
Chart Positions
2 placements across 2 markets.