New Definition of a “Good Case"
About this episode
This episode challenges the belief that strong facts guarantee strong verdicts by exploring the impact of juror psychology on case value.
Send us Fan Mail 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 On...
More episodes of Science of Justice
- Why Strong Cases Bleed Value Early
- The Hidden Risk in “Strong” Cases
- When Facts Fail: The Litigation Intelligence Stack
- Invisible Injuries, Visible Justice: Transforming Brain Injury Litigation
- What Lawyers Miss When They Skip the Science
- Why Good Cases Still Lose
Explore listener stats, chart rankings, contacts and more on the Science of Justice podcast page.