How to win $2,000,000,000 from Monsanto - An Interview with Lead Counsel R. Brent Wisner

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
This is a masterclass in trial tactics from one of the best trial lawyers in the country.
Get a custom made suit -- like the one I’m wearing -- from INDOCHINO for only $359 legaleagle.link/indochino
Brent Wisner is an attorney and partner in the Los Angeles firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC. Collectively, he has won billions of dollars on behalf of his clients. Brent was named one of California’s Top 100 Lawyers for 2018 by the Daily Journal and the National Law Journal and the Trial Lawyer Magazine named him one of America’s 50 Most Influential Trial Lawyers. Brent is also one of the lawyers recognized by The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 for the 2019 Trial Team of the Year award in the Mass Torts category.
In this interview, we cover:
-What it’s like to win $2 billion 2:03
-How to decide on a trial theme 4:21
-How do you prepare for a billion dollar case? 8:33
-How do you pick a jury 11:38
-How do you build a rapport with the jury 16:08
-How do you bolster credibility 18:46
-How do you keep everyone’s attention for weeks 26:52
-What is the most important part of trial 35:02
-How to destroy a Monsanto witness 37:41
-How do you cross examine a witness 43:33
-What do you say to skeptics of the case 47:22
This was a fascinating interview, even for me. Maybe we should start a podcast...
(Thanks to Indochino for sponsoring this video)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: [e-mail]

[@LegalEagle]

Get any premium INDOCHINO suit for only $359 --exclusive for Legal Eagles bit.ly/2IeeB8W

[@elusiveDEVIANT]

The only suit a man should wear is a bespoke suit.

[@alphabett66]

It's "champing at the bit," not "chomping at the bit."

[@jeremyreese54]

Wins 2 billion USD, still wears a cheap crappy suit and wears it sloppy.

[@tedsmart5539]

Why no mentions of appeals and reduction of awards?

[@mxpants4884]

@dsndicmsa Philosophically speaking I'd suggest that the company should pay reparations to negate any profits. (Not a simple thing to calculate.) [EDIT: this is a reply to the comment about agent orange just above]

[@jeromevalantino1810]

“Maybe we need to start a podcast or something” You definitely need to start a podcast because this was awesome listen. I’m not even a lawyer, but I was able to pick up few concepts in this video that I can use in my sales career. Great content man, I’m loving it.

[@marcoVGpolo]

YES. Podcast please. I work in the MEP field and spend a lot of time with clients, trying to convince them that we are the firm to handle projects. I picked up a ton of interesting ideas to try!

[@zengara11]

Yeah, also original. a known interesting lawyer podcast is currently not a thing. he could become the Niel Degrass of lawyers :o

[@jrgil4046]

Yes please!!

[@amethysttalon3507]

Seconded. I would love to hear you do a podcast. Content suggestion - Talk to lawyers from different places around the world and discuss how the justice system is different in different places

[@silasmayes7954]

If only I was any good at talking to people I could use some of this stuff.

[@awaman12]

I feel like I've been watching Leagle Eagle for months now and I only now found out that your name is Devon

[@jlscarpa]

Yeah, he should say his name more in his videos or have a screen label show up with his name and credentials.

[@matthewfaulk]

@Soturian Does he sometimes say D. James Stone or have I been mishearing that? I can never tell!

[@Lowlandlord]

I started watching before he did the Stormy Daniels or Kavanaugh videos, so like over a year, never heard him say it.

[@andrewdussault2315]

His name is Devon?

[@oxLalaLethalxo]

his name is Mr LegalEagle, nothing will convince me otherwise

[@Jetterz1231]

I experienced that confrontational style of questioning as a victim taking to the stand in an adolescent abuse case (UK) . The prosecution took my testimony, the defence cross examined, and then the prosecution flicked through their paperwork, found what they were looking for, and then turned to the defence lawyer. Pros. : "Are you going to ask about this?" Def: *shrugs* Pros. : "No...*are you* going to ask her about *this*?" Def: "You can... If you want." The prosecutor stood up and said "Miss (My name), you had a relationship with (the accused/my abuser) following what occurred, yes?" When I denied it, they asked the same question four other ways, which I denied again and again, getting more confused and upset each time. I eventually asked "I don't know what you're talking about, where is this coming from?" The prosecution turned to the judge and asked whether he could disclose the document he was reading from, saying that it wasn't secret. The judge allowed it and he told me "This is (the accused's) statement against you. This is what he claims is the truth." At the end of the questioning, I was escorted from the courtroom and taken back into a waiting room. Eventually the prosecution lawyer was able to leave and came to see me. He apologised for what had happened, but said that he had to ask me and make it clear to the jury that (the accused's) statement was false, as the defence weren't going to ask me, and once I had left the room, I would be unable to be questioned in court again unless "new and compelling evidence" came to light. He said that the defence's aim was to allow me to leave, and then claim I had attempted to hide the relationship myself and my abuser had had following the abuse - something that he said was now so clearly false due to my confusion and fear upon questioning. It was terrifying, but the lawyer absolutely did the best thing.

[@kaybishop-orricktolley8807]

Thank you for sharing your experience, and voicing your judgment that in the end, the prosecutor handled your questioning well, once you were able to be let in on the reason. (P.s., in your 2nd sentence I think you meant. "The prosecution flicked through".)

[@Jetterz1231]

@@kaybishop-orricktolley8807 Thanks for the spot! Edited now! I absolutely think the prosecutor did the right thing for the case, and for my evidence against my abuser. At the time, I was really shaken, and it took a few years for me to really process the court proceedings and the impact they had on me (something that's still ongoing 8 years later) but I understand why it had to be done like that. I have so much empathy and respect for anyone going through such a process - it's a really challenging experience, and it takes a lot of courage to face it.

[@bigphatwalrus102]

I hope justice was done and you have since found normalcy!

[@Daniella-iw7xe]

He's looking at the camera when answering questions, not the person asking. In mock trial I was taught to look at the jury when answering a question, not the lawyer asked me. It's weird seeing that when you'd never see that in another youtube interview. I love it

[@topiasr628]

I can't stand it. Why is he talking to me when Devon is the one asking the questions

[@MA-zg2pz]

that makes sense in a court room, but not an interview. It feels disingenuous in an interview setting.

[@marylut6077]

@@MA-zg2pz you are subconsciously picking up on the fact that legal eagle’s cameras are breaking the Filmmaking 180 Degree Rule for conversations used with 3 cameras in TV shows and movies. If you follow this rule, each person looks like they are speaking to the other instead of to the camera.

[@marylut6077]

@@topiasr628 you are subconsciously picking up on the fact the 3 cameras are breaking the filmmaking 180 Degree Rule used for conversations in TV shows and movies. If you follow the rule, each person looks like they are speaking to the other person and not to the camera.

[@nharmon80]

It is amazing that the lead attorney who won a $2 billion jury award against Beyer (who knows owns Monsanto) that Roundup is a herbicide and not a pesticide. Who could he not know this?

[@Rickyp0123]

"Let's start with the case where you only won $298,000,000"

[@TesserId]

I see numbers like that and think: "oh, could I have 1/10th of 1% of that, please."

[@paisleepunk]

@@TesserId You seem to want $289,000.

[@TesserId]

@@paisleepunk Wouldn't pass it up.

[@wouldiwasshookspeared4087]

​@@paisleepunkthat's a life changing amount of money for normal people

[@aubeenlopez1051]

Yeah to Dewayne Lee Johnson ❤, though the money still could not "make him whole."

[@StickyMcBudNugget]

I'm 100% in favor of a mini series where you get him and other trial lawyers to swap war stories. This is by far my favorite video youve done

[@millenniumf1138]

"I mean the loquaciousness of lawyers is astounding in how much we like to talk about things we even agree on at times." *Checks length of video.* Yep, checks out!

[@elonifeliciano1918]

3-4 hour opening statement too. Woof!

[@ChiaraOng]

I thought that 1 hour was too long. "What, it's already done?" I learned so much from this! Could we have a series about trial lawyers talking about their experiences in court?

[@djoecav]

The most I know about being a lawyer is what I know from better call saul and I watched the whole thing lmao

[@epicgamer2727]

Objection! This should definitely be a regular podcast.

[@Jablicek]

Seconded.

[@ShuffleboardJerk]

Malazan27 thirded

[@KaiVellichor]

Forth...ed

[@angelarch5352]

Fifthteded...

[@IceNixie0102]

Please start a podcast!

[@Anublet90]

Did Indochino have a 2-for-1 sale or something?

[@NYinside]

😂

[@Anon33467]

Was gonna say this

[@rawtrout3402]

let him earn some money now, he's been workin hard with the videos😂👍👍

[@Derinma]

Marketing opportunity missed

[@chitzkoi]

It's incredible. It's like a uniform.

[@bafarrell82]

I'm just a layman, but it was still fascinating to get a glimpse behind the curtain of such an important case. Thank you for making this. Great content.

[@brandongillette6463]

Sean Astin would play this guy in the movie version

[@bendadestroyer]

The power ranger?

[@JoanieDoeShadow]

@@bendadestroyer Austin Saint John was a Power Ranger. Sean Aston was in; Goonies, AnsinoMan, Rudy, Lord Of The Ring, and many other films.

[@bendadestroyer]

I know... it was a joke.

[@Vendrix86]

they do bear a resemblance but that guy is a terrible actor

[@lefteriseleftheriades7381]

I would cast zach galifianakis

[@nathanmckenzie904]

A billion dollar verdict is a 660 million dollar cut for the firm. If he wasn't a partner before he sure is now

[@donotlike4anonymus594]

a how do u know the % b it was capped at 87 million not 2 billion...

[@ZakDraper]

A judge later reduced the amount of the settlement to just $86.7 million. Source: www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/26/judge-cuts-billion-award-couple-with-cancer-million-roundup-lawsuit/

[@nathanmckenzie904]

@@donotlike4anonymus594 contingency fees are 33.3% of any winnings. I didn't know the judgement was cut

[@VC-Toronto]

He is a partner in the firm, just not a `named partner`. A firm can have many many partners, but there is only so much real estate on the letterhead to put names. Many law firms also now draw a distinction between junior and senior partners on the basis of equity. Senior partners buy in and get a profit share while junior partners have just voting rights and only a higher salary than associates. Now, a name partner is basically the senior of the senior partners.

[@nathanmckenzie904]

@@VC-Toronto I'm not familiar with with law firms, but I'm familiar with LLPs I worked for an accounting firm and we had over 1400 partners. Thanks for the additional information

[@MaxPower-vf8kt]

Objection: I just watched your opinion on the Star Trek Data Trial. You mention there that a lawyer should not address the future implications of the outcome of that trial. However in this interview, the trial lawyer talks about how he addressed the jury in a manner that would have an affect on Monsanto's, or similar companies, and their future. He discusses how he wanted to give the jury purpose to be there and literally talks about "giving them the idea that they are making history". This is almost the exact language used by Piccard, about making history deciding if Data is a human by definition... which you then pause to say, a lawyer should not address the future implications.

[@ivycactus7862]

*implying lawyers care about ethics*

[@EebstertheGreat]

A lawyer is not "supposed to" do this, but he still will if it turns out to be effective at swaying the jury. A bench trial is a different matter.

[@bogdanivchenko3723]

I think that the difference is that he didn’t say it explicitly but he “made it feel like that”.

[@zimbuwawa]

Ever since that episode I've wondered how that mindset of not caring about the future implications of a trial balances against the entire concept of legal precedence. I can't figure out where the balance lays.

[@NEDMKitten]

what jury?

[@GearsPhreak]

OBJECTION! The soundbite played at the start of the episode was that of a red tailed hawk, NOT the soundbite of a bald eagle (the image shown flying over screen). This video is disengenuous to bald eagle enthusiasts and patriots alike everywhere.

[@jennifermills8524]

They do that all the time, makes me mad lol

[@williebowmar7166]

K but an actual bald eagle sounds like a seagull being strangled and nobody wants to hear that

[@7PlayingWithFire7]

It's the same as Hollywood using tiger roar audio for lions, cause lions are kind of puny when they roar

[@someonenothere8818]

OMG I am shocked lol. I never knew this haha. But I guess this is the truth of the sound effects industry haha.

[@DidusayTacos]

you guys are HILARIOUS!

[@lifeofbrian1364]

The setting, the environment, the way the video was put together was beyond exceptional. I'm not alone in the belief you need to start a podcast. It was not just informative, but i was able to stay for the whole hour. Very well put together.

[@pequalsnpsquared2852]

Thanks so much for another video LE! I'm really enjoying these longer, interview-form videos. Good luck to the future!

[@purefury702]

Yeah, but I usually like to have long interviews like this in audio-only format. Ever consider doing a LE podcast?

[@btat16]

Brandon Palmer I second this notion

[@rawtrout3402]

yes! i left this playing in my tv while cleaning the house and just listened. please do more long interviews @LegalEAGLE

[@Snagabott]

I'm fairly certain he's LG. Yes, I think he'd make a decent paladin.

[@j.c.gleason766]

Objection!! Why isn’t Stella running around wagging her tail and panting her heart out?

[@amehak1922]

J.C. Gleason she'd be at home, this likely wasn't recorded there.

[@Alkis05]

I hope Stella is the name of a dog...

[@amehak1922]

Alkis05 it is

[@andrewxc1335]

22:30 - Vinny uses this "confrontational direct examiner" technique when he puts Mona on the stand. I agree, very interactive, and it makes the jury think "yeah, that's what I think, too!" and then their opinions get smashed to bits by the expert.

[@mrdragoon2056]

A lot of the commentary/tips are very interesting to see as a lawyer in a continental law system with no jurors. Awesome to see how American lawyers approach their juries.

[@nightfly4664]

@@Aries2890 This would be incredibly interesting! As I keep on being baffled by how common law works in regards to juries. To me (a complete moron when it comes to law), it seems incredibly biased and unfair.

[@kauske]

I'd love to see how this trial went with a jury made of knowledgeable scientists, I imagine that lawyer would have been laughed out of the court, and the case dismissed due to the overall lack of evidence (scientifically) that roundup causes cancer. For a handful of studies (some of which are discredited/retracted), there's a ton more that can't find any correlation at all, never mind a functional causation.

[@johnny_eth]

Jury trials are an aberration. Since when do courts with incompetent juries decide on matter of science and nuance ? Makes no sense.

[@silentdrew7636]

@@johnny_eth they don't. The scientists figure that out and get called to serve as expert witnesses with perjury penalties for witnesses who lie under oath. It's not hard to find out if a study was paid for by Monsanto, especially big the scientists behind it work for the company.

[@silentdrew7636]

@@kauske most of the evidence for Monsanto's claim comes from groups they've paid, unlike the evidence against them. Either way, the most recent in-depth studies have shown a likely connection between glyphosate (I hope I spelled that right) and cancer.

[@butters6295]

I just got an Indochino suit for my law school! Used your offer code. I could not be more happy with the quality.

[@Vendrix86]

okay devon

[@LadyGlobeTrotter23]

That was incredible ! I could’ve listened to that for four more hours. Thank you for the hard work and time you two out into that video. That’s was endlessly fascinating!

[@solarblitzch9055]

This is crap. The whole video. Sorry to say. Attorneys will not overtaking science! At the end a jurys decide how this world is working? Then good night!

[@LadyGlobeTrotter23]

@@solarblitzch9055 Um... do you not know how lawsuits work?

[@solarblitzch9055]

@@LadyGlobeTrotter23 Yes i do. do you know how science work?

[@ScottHz]

@@solarblitzch9055 I’m kind of wondering if you do (know how science works)…

[@BullmooseBeerTalks]

As amazing as your pop culture reviews are, I really like these real world case studies and interviews are.

[@zainio]

Having him look into the camera instead of towards you while talking was a bit weird. If he's just like that, that's fine but I assume you'd asked him to do so.

[@gooflydo]

Your right its a little unsettling. Its set up in a way that seems like its going to be two friends having a friendly conversation, but then he looks directly at the camera. Its like he caught you spying on the conversation, and my first reaction is to look away.

[@DrewDienno]

He probably doesn't have a lot of on-screen experience. It is unsettling though

[@zainio]

@@DrewDienno IDK, he's on camera in court and he doesn't seem awkward at all, just looking at the camera like he was instructed as opposed to having a normal convo.

[@DrewDienno]

Random Tutorials probably just a poor director choice trying to engage the audience

[@PatrickAllenNL]

Its annoying

[@hughmungus7813]

When did samwise gamgee become a lawyer?

[@shadracarthur]

I was actually thinking Sean Astin should play him.

[@ruwiki]

After he was tired of the island they went to.

[@ruwiki]

xD

[@sce2aux464]

"We're not gonna settle this, Mister Frodo, we're not gonna settle!"

[@dantehedge8414]

@@sce2aux464 take your upvote...

[@anonjo2630]

I would love to see a comparison to judicial system with and without jury systems

[@lordgolias6984]

@LegalEagle, thank you so much for making this interview and making it available here. It is a great interview!

[@spideylover4105]

Just a reminder- science isn't decided in a courtroom.

[@RobertH3]

I am not a fan of Monsanto, largely because they are bad to a similar extent that many other corporations are. That being said, that has nothing to do with science. The short version is: There is jack evidence of Glyphosate causing NHL when used on food, at home, etc. There is some correlation with NHL in an industrial setting. However, these settings are also settings where the workers are exposed to a large number of possible and known carcinogens. Glyphosate is arbitrarily chosen on the list seemingly because people hate it / Monsanto. Counterpoint Let's say hypothetically that it's known now that Glyphosate does *not* cause NHL. Monsanto can *still* be sued. Why? Because it *does* look like it at one point wasn't clear to Monsanto at the time that Glyphosate wasn't dangerous, but they were only concerned about their bottom line and seemed to be unconcerned with the possible effects. This is lawsuit worthy material, even if there didn't end up being any risk. The initial reward amount of $2 Billion in this case is absurd, although the reward was reduced $86.7 million, which is still seems excessive. This lawyer I strongly dislike this guy, at least as presented. His rhetorical abilities are really good, and that's part of the problem. The people who watch this video are being lawyered at. He wants to do more of these lawsuits, for sure. This guy and this case is a cost example to me how lawyers can actively fight against truth and justice. This sort of thing gets me thinking about how to arrange motivations on a better way, and I find it tricky... I still basically end up at the antagonistic system. However, the real solution is for the lawyers themselves to have higher ethical discipline. The problem is that doing that can readily cost lawyers millions of dollars in many cases. Good luck.

[@ranondo92]

Yup, Lawyers like this rely on the ignorance of the jury.

[@bobkilla430]

@@ranondo92 at the same time it was Monsanto's lawyers to sway the jury to their favor. At least now I know why almost everything I eat and drink comes with a warning that says it has chemicals that can cause cancer.

[@bobkilla430]

@dsndicmsa no I didn't. I was just tongue and cheek with my comment because out here in California so many things the prop 65(?) Warning on them. Is the Monsanto glyphosate like the argument of how fish have mercury in them but such a small trace amount that it's near impossible to get mercury poisoning by even eating alot of fish?

[@ranondo92]

@@bobkilla430 glyphosate doesn't cause cancer, that's the problem.

[@5m4llP0X]

I normally avoid 1 hour videos, but this was quite entertaining and informative. Thank you.

[@thefloridamanofytcomments5264]

dsndicmsa wtf is the “organics industry”? 😂

[@thefloridamanofytcomments5264]

I want to spread misinformation for this big conglomerate you speak of against honest chemical manufacturers, who do I contact about getting on payroll? Apparently this guy works for something called a law firm and they charge by the hour or contingency on specific litigation, I don’t want that. I want to be on the salary where I do battle on KZbin comments and make millions every time some hipster asshole buys avocado toast instead of roundup for breakfast.

[@thefloridamanofytcomments5264]

Dude did you really sit here waiting for my reply for seven hours? I was just kidding about people being paid to argue in the comments section but now I seriously hope you’re actually on the clock for Monsanto 😂

[@thefloridamanofytcomments5264]

What are you, just refreshing the page for two days like checking your fuckin mail to see if you got me with a real zinger yet? It’s a major case that took almost two years of discovery/procedural bs before they even argued and you think it matters whether the attorney was paid by contingency instead of doing it pro bono? Lol. Even if he did work for free you’d be saying he bribed the jurors next with these ridiculous conspiracy theories, which I’m shocked you haven’t dropped the J-bomb in yet. It’s poison, they lost, get over it. Don’t drink the kool aid, especially RoundUp flavor.

[@danno938]

It's just so cool to see Zach Galifianakis and John Krasinski talk about their time studying law.

[@Breadcrochets]

Hey Devin, a tip for the next time you interview a guest: when they’re talking to you or vis versa, it’s really weird and off putting to look right into the camera instead of at each other, which Brent does pretty much constantly through out the whole video. Other than that, really great video. Super cool to hear from the attorney involved in this historic case

[@Abou47Pandas]

Was looking for someone who felt the same... It was really bugging me

[@dagenpracchia6683]

When a lawyer asks a question in court, they look at the jury. They also tell their witnesses to look at the jury. Just like how they’re looking at the camera.

[@Abou47Pandas]

@@dagenpracchia6683 Yeah-- but this isn't a courtroom-- it's an interviewer and interviewee, one on one.

[@zippityduda919]

You often say that you need permission to enter the well, what are the determining factors for a judge to give permission to enter the well?

[@scbill88]

If a judge can just throw out a verdict and replace it with her own, what’s the point of the jury?

[@chriscarrara8299]

William Bruckmann a judge can throw out a guilty or negligent verdict, but not a not guilty

[@jawn1977jaws]

that's easy...when you want to show the jury something up close in person, and not on a overhead projector screen.

[@javiercs006]

Basically (lawyer here) it's up to the judge's discretion, aka if they feel like it. Some will allow you almost as a matter of course, others will want you to stay at the podium or counsel table.

[@willieclark2256]

Being a judge

[@andremaines]

I think you're going overboard with the camera switching. The wide shot is fine for most of it. Use the close ups sparingly only when you want to emphasize a point

[@tomsmith5584]

Objection: We should get one hour CLE credit for watching this.

[@quique7764]

Only thing I remember about Glyphosate was when a brilliant reporter dared an executive to drink some after the exec. made the claim that it was safe, safe enough to drink. Of course he declined & IIRC he said I'm not stupid.

[@theespatier4456]

6:16 “You did teach me most of the things I know about being a trial lawyer” - R Brent Wisner 2019

[@confucheese]

Now that’s a goddamn fireplace if I’ve seen one.

[@LethargicHades]

This is by far my favorite video of yours. Hearing both of you on a trial that like this was amazing.

[@CAGonRiv]

This is without a doubt, one of my top three favorite vids from Legal Eagle.

[@cmckee42]

34:16 Objection! TV lawyer lines definitely come from a script.

[@baronvonkrogglesteiniii5310]

While I agree that the closer a company gets to monopolizing a market sector, the more closely we need to scrutinize them, I have very serious misgivings about using the judiciary as arbiter of scientific consensus. That said, this is an interesting dive into the courtroom procedure, even if I disagree with the direction and outcome of the case. If the case hinges on "don't just believe the EPA" shouldn't the suit also be carried against the EPA?

[@kam_iko]

it just goes to show what role actual facts play in today‘s court of law. or politics. or everyday life.

[@baronvonkrogglesteiniii5310]

@@kam_iko At least the courts are transparent about the role facts play. This is a civil case, 51% confidence is good enough. But for scientific publication, 95% is the minimum, and even that is low enough to cause problems.

[@EebstertheGreat]

@@baronvonkrogglesteiniii5310 Scientific studies don't give that kind of confidence. In a trial, the jury must decide it is more than 50% likely that the defendant is guilty. But the equivalent for a scientific study would be deciding there would be less than a 5% probability of finding such strong evidence if the defendant were innocent. That still doesn't mean he's likely to actually be guilty. Most conclusions in published scientific papers are wrong. But I agree completely that while companies like Monsanto (now Bayer AG) do merit close scrutiny and probably suspicion, that doesn't mean we should dismiss good evidence simply in order to punish people we already expect to be in the wrong. It's especially frustrating when I see scientists accused of being "shills" because they support the growing consensus of the safety of glyphosate.

[@harrystaley3289]

Unfortunately, the EPA should be held accountable in some way as well.

[@shadracarthur]

oh, and the guy who wrote the guidelines for the EPA said they weren't following said guidelines is meaningless? and depending on who is in power in the government, and who they appoint to run the EPA can determine if they are doing their job.

[@peterpanda1637]

I'm surprised I watched the entire video. This was such a great and delightful conversation about the "BTS" of the case. I'm glad you make these videos and I will continue to watch them. Also, I will definitely have to check out Indochino.

[@dobber1641]

Absolutely loved this video, don’t even care that it was long. It was so full of information of real-world application as I’m contemplating law school and this is just one more thing that inspires me to make that leap.

[@davidbarnett8617]

Letting a jury of non-experts decide on whether a chemical compound causes cancer is ludicrous.

[@JosephDavies]

@Soturian: An educated Jury may _help_ but it won't fix the underlying problem here, which is that the trial/jury system is not designed to decide scientific truth, nor is it meant to do so. That's the biggest problem with this case, especially when people try to use it as the basis for any arguments about the reality of the situation.

[@addisonmorton2348]

Soturian juries don’t decide matters of law they decide matters of fact, judges make determinations of matters of law (and occasionally matters of fact in bench trials) in addition to require jurors be experts in the field would violate the “jury of peers” language in the constitution so while I think it might be a good change for complex large tort cases it would require a constitutional amendment

[@SE-xg2pi]

Yah, did you not listen to the first part about picking jurors?

[@javiercs006]

The alternative is a bench trial, and most judges aren't experts in that field either. That's why expert witnesses exist.

[@jaaval]

Even a true expert in all relevant fields could not say if a specific compound caused the cancer in these people. Cancer is a fundamentally stochastic process. It happens without any specific reason and there are factors that affect the probability. Basically the jury decided that because there is a chance that glyphosate might be one of these factors they will have to pay no matter if they actually caused the cancer.

[@pluralofAbyss]

“Maybe we need to start a podcast or something” Objection! I’m mad this is not yet a reality. We have a right to speedy podcast!

[@mixiekins]

receives compliment "oh staaaahhhp" immediately throws up quote card

[@funkkymonkey6924]

I like interviews between 2 people in a similar profession... questions have so much more depth than “whas it gud”

[@tamelo]

Objection, there is no study linking "organic" food and improvement in health.

[@Minuz1]

​@dsndicmsa Only IARC? = The biggest scientific research collaborator of cancer on this planet. Who would you prefer as a better source? McDonalds?

[@rogermwilcox]

@@Minuz1 : The World Health Organization as a whole, of which IARC is a part, disagrees with the IARC's assessment of glyphosate as a "probable" (Group 2A) carcinogen. The IARC's decision was based on a review of a few animal studies, some of which were selected deliberately because they cast glyphosate in a negative light (while those studies showing no correlation between glyphosate and cancer were summarily ignored.) And even if that weren't the case, the classification of a substance on IARC's carcinogen list says nothing about the CONCENTRATION or EXPOSURE LEVEL required for the substance to increase one's risk of cancer. If it took 500 grams of glyphosate per day to give you cancer, and the average consumer is exposed to less than a milligram of it per day, it would STILL get on the IARC's carcinogen list. It's about as useless as California's Proposition 65.

[@nihilisticspacelizard1868]

Soturian It’s meant to kill PLANTS!! Unless this dude was Groot, it is damn near guaranteed that he didn’t get any negative effects from glyphosate.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

@@nihilisticspacelizard1868 All life complex enough to breathe oxygen (that includes plants) is very similar to each other on a raw chemical level. That's why human bodies can convert plants to human with not much effort. That being said it does not seem to be a very strong carcinogen or we would hear more about this and many studies do not find a link. It's mostly Monsanto's business conduct that needs to be punished for not researching their product properly. The Jury definitely went too far with this, as using new chemicals designed to kill things puts some responsibility on the farmer. The Judge brought it back down to reasonable, but I think it is a bit high. In any case, the main point of the ruling is to enforce good business behavior rather than punish Monsanto.

[@Animuldok]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana There are many chemicals that can kill plants and insects that you would literally have to ingest a metric ton of in order to cause harm to yourself. There are some pretty major differences in biochemical pathways we can exploit to kill one organism while not harming another.

[@kilbeam99]

Amazing interview. I greatly respect both of you for being real and unafraid of owning your mistakes. Thank you so much for the time and effort to do this interview!

[@aggy5372]

I was friends with a lot of theater majors in college, and quite a few of them have become lawyers. This is a good example of why. You really have to be able to understand how to put on the show and make friends with the other people in the room.

[@primalfear83]

Man, this has been an incredible interview. This format for video is really great an informative. (have been watching you a while, and only seeing it now) A Podcast style video, where you discuss real cases with other lawyers would be fascinating.

[@ayyylmao101]

I can feel your professional fangirling through the screen, and I am fangirling in reciprocation LOL. Thank you for uploading this! What a great opportunity this was, good for you, man.

[@cmckee42]

Last I checked Bayer is currently in the process of removing the Monsanto name with some aggressive rebranding.

[@josephg3462]

Bayer made a critical mistake. Their European offices had NO idea about how bad their brand name was in America. They thought "Wow, we're getting a great deal. I can't believe nobody's acquired this company." Not realizing the history of Monsanto...

[@cmckee42]

@@josephg3462 hence the rebranding

[@mrdownboy]

@@josephg3462 They (the Bayer european office) must be a company of DUMB MUTHERFUCKERS in the age of the Internet

[@Studeb]

@@josephg3462 The World According to Monsanto is a documentary that was produced in France, I watched it on Swedish National TV and that was the first time I had heard of the company about ten years ago, I'm sure the company's bad reputation was well known in Europe too.

[@sambradley9091]

@@Studeb Wasn't that that documentary where a Monsanto supporter said Round Up was safe to drink lmao

[@XxMerunxX]

This was a truly great video! It was so engaging throughout the entire time. I loved the chemistry between you two. Thank you for such a great insight into this case and the legal techniques!

[@Tactical_potato1]

Who knew a trial attorney would make a great film director. He developed drama, incited emotion and told a good story. That’s what I gathered from this wonderful interview.

[@christopherburke7038]

Boy would I love to be the company that produced the kite surfing equipment that malfunctioned on a renowned lawyer...

[@thunderlipsjoe216]

Right? If they were taken to court and could prove foul play, just imagine how many more billions those responsible for the "malfunction" would lose in court. Wouldn't have been as sus if not for the next lawyer in the queue having a random seizure right after the accident, i think they just couldn't figure out how to sideling this guy given his age they probably thought they had a good enough shot?

[@jonathanrivlin6248]

Thank you LE for a great interview! Question/Request: please do a follow up about this case in regards to the ultimate disposition of the award and its tax implications, especially in light of the TCJA. It might help people understand that large verdicts might grab headlines, but the actual money that goes to a plaintiff (someone that a jury of their peers found to have been harmed) is lower than what makes the news. In some cases, a plaintiff may owe more in tax than the net that comes to them, making them worse off.

[@jaybestnz]

This was an incredible interview. You guys are just so down to earth and likable.

[@jameskelly6546]

The more I watch on this channel the more I respect you and your commitment to genuinely intriguing and entertaining content. Please do not change.

[@TheDudeman7575]

this was awesome Legal Eagle!! Being an current AMTA competitor myself, it is absolutely inspiring to see the two of you doing so well. Go bruins!

[@jgense1]

This was a fantastic episode! would love to see more of these interview style videos!

[@phestojen7966]

I love to see this perspective. It really shows the unbelievably fine line between persuasive and manipulative techniques and how to use both in a respectable ratio to build a strong and compelling argument.

[@sean640]

this is the most articulate conversation of my life. thank you for that

[@BigZ7337]

This was such an excellent interview, it was so interesting that I didn't really notice that it was an hour long. Thanks. :)

[@notsae66]

I fully support you two starting a podcast.

[@Starcrash6984]

There already _is_ a legal podcast that I would recommend called _Opening Arguments._ They actually did an episode on RoundUp's lawsuit a year ago found here: openargs.com/oa202-roundup-with-special-guest-the-scibabe/ Even though I fully endorse this podcast as an excellent way to learn more about the law, I kinda hate this episode because it features SciBabe who is both an expert and has a conflict of interest in being one of the scientists responsible for giving RoundUp a "seal of approval" for safety.

[@AH-xs3hg]

This Legal Eagle episode is a little older, but it's my favorite so far! You guys should definitely do that podcast or turn these conversations into a KZbin series or something.

[@RandomRobo]

I can't believed I watched a full hour of this. I never thought I would be entertained by a lawyer. This is a really cool channel!

[@irvincooks1]

Breath of fresh air. Loved this interview

[@GoCoyote]

When I was a young teenager, of an age to do yardwork, I came across a magazine article about the history of DDT that showed some of the advertising from the 1940's and 1950's, saying that it was safe enough to eat. I then wondered if our understanding of Roundup and it's claims of safety would be as wrong as DDT, and decided not to use it. A decision that has proved to be prescient by time. History may not repeat itself in every detail, but it sure can rhyme.

[@nerdypotato7356]

This is by far one of my favourite of you videos, fanatsic job and brilliant work by Brent Wisner

[@Vallarok117]

I did a double take when this started cause I thought Devon was sitting next to Samwise Gamgee.

[@kungfreddie]

The problem with the jury system is that lawyers can sell junk science to them. If there was a process where a "jury" of scientists on the relative field had to approve expert witnesses it might be better.

[@Snagabott]

Objection(ish) The feather on the scale analogy seems a bit flawed for a case like this. If all you ask is for a juror to say "I don't know, but I think it might" on the question "does this agent lead to increased cancer rates?", then there is no point in having a trial - any chemical company will be guilty by default. Why? Because cells in isolation respond negatively to pretty much any chemical that isn't either water or food in some way, and the less stimuli (ie. chemicals) they are exposed to, the less they will experience mutations. The number of chemical compounds that can be said to be completely biologically inert is a vanishingly small fraction. Much has been made of the harmful effects of chemicals in our surroundings, but the reason we still use them is because the alternative is often worse. Show me any cleaning agent, and I will guarantee that 1) "I think it might" cause cancer and 2) not using any cleaning agent will increase the rate of harmful germs you are exposed to. The increase in life expectancy since we started using these agents say that they are a net positive, but that doesn't mean they are not at least _possibly somewhat_ carcinogenic. PS that's not necessarily anything to do with the case in question here ofc. Rates of 12% compared to 1-2% controls in statistically significant numbers is not just "don't know, but might", that's a clear indication.

[@Vojoor]

Amazing to watch, kept me the full hour! More of this would be highly appreciated

[@pocketheart1450]

Please do more interviews like this in the future. Also please interview people from the criminal side of the law such as defense attorneys and prosecutors. This is probably one of the best videos I've ever seen.

[@CLBOO6]

How amazing is this? I didn't even know a case would have a theme.

[@cursedlight7481]

What risks of cancer ? The only study who showed that there was an increased risk of NHL cancer showed also a DECREASED risk of cancer in general. :/

[@Kaatia18]

This was very interesting and informative. My family has been in law for a number of years (different country) it's always fun to get an in-depth analysis, especially from people that obviously love their job.

[@Lazzil]

This is the first 1-hr video I actually watched all the way through. Very interesting stuff here!

[@wojtektolsdorf1738]

Could you say which part of Bird Law did you have to revise in preparation for this case?

[@rom65536]

Mr. Wisner, if I ever find you in a bar, I'll buy you a whole damn pitcher.

[@nihilisticspacelizard1868]

Pro tip: buy some corn produced industrially with glyphosate to snack on while you do actual research on Roundup and Monsanto using Google Scholar, (none of that stupid people shit) instead.

[@chazdomingo475]

@@nihilisticspacelizard1868 Go to Walmart and buy a bottle of glyphosate and guzzle it down you schmuck.

[@raccoonking7566]

@@chazdomingo475 Dumb argument. If you do that with high proof alcohol you'd end up in a hospital, if you do that with a lot of stuff in the super market you'd end up in a hospital. The amount of glyphosate you consume from food is negligible, the amount farmers are exposed to has very weak scientific evidence that it causes cancer. A good rule is The dose makes the poison. If you drink enough water, you die, if you don't urinate for long enough, you die, if you stand in the sun long enough, skin cancer, you get enough CAT or Xray scans, you get cancer, if you eat enough CINNAMON or CARAMEL, you get cancer. A lot of stuff is a carcinogen, but i doubt that you will avoid cinnamon next time you make apple pie. I'm guessing the only reason that glyphosate and Roundup is demonized is because Monsanto invented it, today the patents have expired, and if i had the licences i could legally make it in my backyard and sell it. Monsanto is not an angel, they did make Agent Orange, but so did other companies (I'm not saying that it's okay because of that, chemical warfare is a crime for a reason), Nestle also says that access to clean water isn't a right, but no one is boycotting KitKats or their other products.

[@Galworld761]

Aleksej Rakić are you a scientist? Google University? Irrespective, assuming you are correct, I have the RIGHT to know what is in the food I purchase. I pay for the right with my purchase, so if there is a chance of harm - I demand to know and make an educated choice.

[@jewishautisticnerd3874]

@@Galworld761 Here's a tip there is a chance of harm for absolutely all food you buy

[@yavannapr]

I lost count of how many times I had watch this video. This Brent Wisner is great.

[@10kreviews2020]

Yet another amazing video. Appreciate the long form this time. Very interesting inside view.

[@tim6582]

I like how the 'tricks' Brent used weren't dirty or underhanded. Brent wasn't trying to manipulate the jury, rather his tricks were all revolving around the idea that he wanted the jury to hear all the facts and understand them. Even a well argued case could easily lose a jury's interest if presented poorly--causing them to miss important details, and possibly arrive at a less favorable conclusion.

[@samlevi4744]

Using bad science to manipulate the jury to believe a falsehood is misleading.

[@Snipe4261]

This is why I dislike lawyers. The unacknowledged level of cynacism here is incredible. I've never seen anything like it. Right or wrong, they spent most of this video talking about how to manipulate the jury.

[@daviddpg]

It's great to watch a future multi-million subscriber channel. Always great content. No where to go but up.

[@ashleyrolon105]

This is an amazing interview on what it takes to be a lawyer and to go after big money and big corporations

[@ross825]

I hate being in a position where I’m on Monsanto’s side, but the IARC’s monograph wouldn’t pass a peer review if they tried to publish in a journal. I think a basic rule for secondary literature is that you shouldn’t misrepresent the conclusions in the primary literature you cite, which they did. I give him mad props for jury selection though.

[@pseudotasuki]

Ross Duff They’re lawyers. They don’t care about science or facts, just what’ll win the case.

[@nihilisticspacelizard1868]

Rob Speed You just summed up every American. Screw science and facts, just give me feel-good juice and a scapegoat.

[@good-questions]

This is also where legalese breaks down from the entire point of justice. How can anyone really be in support of a company - cause the other lawyer was “naughty” - trying to own the rights to the genetic reproductive properties of the plants that produce....... humanity’s food source. Let alone all the other crazy shit they’ve done.

[@nihilisticspacelizard1868]

David Stanley Plants that produce far more than their natural counterparts because Monsanto spent millions on designing them to best fit currently ideal environments, creating a huge boost to the global economy allowing more jobs than ever to be transitioned from agriculture into industry and improving the living conditions of the poor the most? Did you expect Monsanto to be a charity? Also, their plants have no functional reproductive organs to prevent herbicide resistant plants from spreading to the environment.

[@nikolaibreckenridge2287]

@@good-questions Most of the "crazy shit they've done" is probably not something they actually did. There is so much said about Monsanto that is just blatantly false. It's also impossible for a company to control humanity's food source. Monsanto has patents on plants that THEY created, and which would not exist had they not created it.

[@mikaylabutler6738]

Loved the video! However I have an objection. When describing Voir Dire at some point you say it means “to speak, to say” when it actually means “to see, to say”. Just a factual objection! Maybe I misheard what you said, but I think the translation was incorrect. Let me know! Thanks!

[@SilentSalad]

This was an absolutely fascinating interview. Thank you so much, Bro.

[@Leggir]

Terrific content. Have to admit that I don't really care about TV dramas with court proceedings, but you make it palatable.

[@mcj87]

Great interview! Came from the "Reacts To" series and can't get enough of this channel, these insights into US laws, trial tactics etc. although I'm not part of the attorney world at all, very informative and entertaining! P.S.: the 3 cam-setup is great, but rather than looking 95% of the time straight to the cam and only occasionally at each other, better do it the other way round documentary-/interview-style, feels weird otherwise (especially when both of you were in the same wide shot and never looking at each other) ;)

[@jacobklunder8552]

As a Dane, I have a suggestion - a video on why Trump can’t buy Greenland.

[@LB-ou8wt]

It wouldn't be that interesting of a video. Just "it's not for sale, so if he wants it, he has to invade it, not buy it"

[@jacobklunder8552]

LB See, this is why the video would be interesting - it would explain the legal reasons why, even if we WANTED to sell Greenland, we CAN’T.

[@LastBastion]

Probably like how US buy Alaska back then

[@Praehotec]

@@jacobklunder8552 But you could, what law stops it if you wanted to sell it?

[@jacobklunder8552]

Greenland’s home rule. It’s an internal matter, so Denmark has no say in it.

[@carpetlayenful]

By the way love the videos keep pumping them out. Haven't missed a one.

[@rjmacready505]

I saw the length and didn't think I'd watch the whole thing. Ten minutes into it the video was over. In other words, that was a rather enjoyable interview.

[@ForgottenHonor0]

Could you react and review to the court proceeding and legal partner scenes in the movie Philadelphia with Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington?

[@idatethefatkid]

This video showed me that being an exceptional lawyer means being an exceptional manipulator. I will never cross a lawyer after this lol

[@dragonlordjonerc]

This was a lot of fun. Your guest was a delight to listen to.

[@kaitlynne-raelandry8737]

This was beyond fascinating! Bring R. Brent back sometime please! I'd love to hear an update!!!