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

Подписаться 3,2 млн

Просмотров 1,1 млн

50% 1

⚖️ 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: legaleagle@standard.tv

Опубликовано:

1 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 2,1 тыс.

@LegalEagle 4 года назад

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

@iitylernallen 4 года назад

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

@alphabett66 4 года назад

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

@jeremyreese54 4 года назад

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

@tedsmart5539 4 года назад

Why no mentions of appeals and reduction of awards?

@mxpants4884 4 года назад

@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]

@awaman12 4 года назад

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

@jlscarpa 4 года назад

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

@matthewfaulk 4 года назад

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

@Lowlandlord 4 года назад

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

@andrewdussault2315 4 года назад

His name is Devon?

@oxLalaLethalxo 4 года назад

his name is Mr LegalEagle, nothing will convince me otherwise

@jeromevalantino1810 4 года назад

“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 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@jrgil4046 4 года назад

Yes please!!

@amethysttalon3507 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@Jetterz1231 4 года назад

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 Год назад

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 Год назад

@@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 Год назад

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

@ricardocruz4235 3 года назад

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

@TesserId 3 года назад

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

@paisleepunk 2 года назад

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

@TesserId 2 года назад

@@paisleepunk Wouldn't pass it up.

@wouldiwasshookspeared4087 11 месяцев назад

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

@aubeenlopez1051 8 месяцев назад

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

@Daniella-iw7xe 4 года назад

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 3 года назад

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

@MA-zg2pz 3 года назад

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

@marylut6077 Год назад

@@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 Год назад

@@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 Год назад

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?

@millenniumf1138 3 года назад

"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 года назад

3-4 hour opening statement too. Woof!

@StickyMcBudNugget 3 года назад

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

@ChiaraOng 3 года назад

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 Год назад

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

@epicgamer2727 4 года назад

Objection! This should definitely be a regular podcast.

@Jablicek 4 года назад

Seconded.

@ShuffleboardJerk 4 года назад

Malazan27 thirded

@KaiVellichor 4 года назад

Forth...ed

@angelarch5352 4 года назад

Fifthteded...

@IceNixie0102 4 года назад

Please start a podcast!

@Anublet90 4 года назад

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

@NYinside 4 года назад

😂

@Anon33467 4 года назад

Was gonna say this

@rawtrout3402 4 года назад

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

@Derinma 4 года назад

Marketing opportunity missed

@chitzkoi 4 года назад

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

@brandongillette6463 4 года назад

Sean Astin would play this guy in the movie version

@bendadestroyer 4 года назад

The power ranger?

@JoanieDoeShadow 4 года назад

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

@bendadestroyer 4 года назад

I know... it was a joke.

@Vendrix86 4 года назад

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

@lefteriseleftheriades7381 4 года назад

I would cast zach galifianakis

@bafarrell82 3 года назад

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.

@MaxPower-vf8kt 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

*implying lawyers care about ethics*

@EebstertheGreat 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@zimbuwawa 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

what jury?

@nathanmckenzie904 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@ZakDraper 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@VC-Toronto 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

@@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

@lifeofbrian1364 4 года назад

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.

@andrewxc1335 4 года назад

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.

@pequalsnpsquared2852 4 года назад

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

@purefury702 4 года назад

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

@btat16 4 года назад

Brandon Palmer I second this notion

@rawtrout3402 4 года назад

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

@Snagabott 4 года назад

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

@j.c.gleason766 4 года назад

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

@amehak1922 4 года назад

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

@Alkis05 4 года назад

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

@amehak1922 4 года назад

Alkis05 it is

@GearsPhreak 4 года назад

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 3 года назад

They do that all the time, makes me mad lol

@williebowmar7166 3 года назад

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

@7PlayingWithFire7 3 года назад

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

@someonenothere8818 3 года назад

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

@DidusayTacos 3 года назад

you guys are HILARIOUS!

@LadyGlobeTrotter23 4 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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

@solarblitzch9055 3 года назад

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

@ScottHz Год назад

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

@mrdragoon2056 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@silentdrew7636 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

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

@Vendrix86 4 года назад

okay devon

@BullmooseBeerTalks 4 года назад

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

@anonjo2630 3 года назад

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

@cmckee42 4 года назад

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

@theespatier4456 4 года назад

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

@lordgolias6984 4 года назад

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

@LethargicHades Год назад

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

@confucheese 4 года назад

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

@5m4llP0X 4 года назад

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

@thefloridamanofytcomments5264 4 года назад

dsndicmsa wtf is the “organics industry”? 😂

@thefloridamanofytcomments5264 4 года назад

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 RU-vid comments and make millions every time some hipster asshole buys avocado toast instead of roundup for breakfast.

@thefloridamanofytcomments5264 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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.

@Breadcrochets 4 года назад

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 3 года назад

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

@dagenpracchia6683 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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

@Tactical_potato1 3 года назад

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.

@zainio 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@zainio 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

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

@PatrickAllenNL 4 года назад

Its annoying

@spideylover4105 4 года назад

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

@RobertH3 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@bobkilla430 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

@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 4 года назад

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

@GoCoyote Год назад

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.

@danno938 2 года назад

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

@zippityduda919 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@chriscarrara8299 4 года назад

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

@jawn1977jaws 4 года назад

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

@javiercs006 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

Being a judge

@hughmungus7813 4 года назад

When did samwise gamgee become a lawyer?

@shadracarthur 4 года назад

I was actually thinking Sean Astin should play him.

@ruwiki 4 года назад

After he was tired of the island they went to.

@ruwiki 4 года назад

@sce2aux464 4 года назад

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

@dantehedge8414 4 года назад

@@sce2aux464 take your upvote...

@aggy5372 Год назад

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.

@dobber1641 3 года назад

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.

@pluralofAbyss 4 года назад

“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!

@andremaines 4 года назад

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

@CAGonRiv 3 года назад

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

@nerdypotato7356 4 года назад

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

@davidbarnett8617 4 года назад

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

@JosephDavies 4 года назад

@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 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@javiercs006 4 года назад

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

@jaaval 4 года назад

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.

@tamelo 4 года назад

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

@Minuz1 4 года назад

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

@rogermwilcox 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

@@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.

@jaybestnz 2 года назад

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

@primalfear83 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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.

@jonathanrivlin6248 4 года назад

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.

@peterpanda1637 4 года назад

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.

@phestojen7966 Год назад

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.

@kilbeam99 4 года назад

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!

@baronvonkrogglesteiniii5310 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@baronvonkrogglesteiniii5310 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

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

@shadracarthur 4 года назад

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.

@XxMerunxX 4 года назад

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!

@Vojoor 3 года назад

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

@jgense1 4 года назад

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

@TheDudeman7575 4 года назад

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!

@tomsmith5584 4 года назад

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

@sean640 4 года назад

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

@BigZ7337 4 года назад

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

@christopherburke7038 4 года назад

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

@thunderlipsjoe216 3 года назад

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?

@quique7764 Год назад

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.

@Lazzil 4 года назад

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

@irvincooks1 4 года назад

Breath of fresh air. Loved this interview

@cmckee42 4 года назад

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

@josephg3462 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

@@josephg3462 hence the rebranding

@mrdownboy 4 года назад

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

@Studeb 4 года назад

@@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 4 года назад

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

@10kreviews2020 4 года назад

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

@funkkymonkey6924 4 года назад

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

@cursedlight7481 4 года назад

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. :/

@notsae66 4 года назад

I fully support you two starting a podcast.

@Starcrash6984 4 года назад

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.

@jameskelly6546 4 года назад

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.

@RandomRobo 4 года назад

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!

@mixiekins 4 года назад

receives compliment "oh staaaahhhp" immediately throws up quote card

@apburner1 4 года назад

One hour of being told that right and wrong doesn't matter, that truth doesn't matter, that the only thing that matters is theater and performance. This makes me feel so confident in our judicial system...

@JosephDavies 4 года назад

It makes me ill. To see it celebrated is sickening on a basic ethics level.

@lacywhitevalenti7234 4 года назад

@@JosephDavies The ethics come from the battle between the two sides. That's why a jury is so important. What would you rather have? An all ruling judge with no lawyers on either side and no jury whatsoever? THAT is a lack of ethics.

@JosephDavies 4 года назад

@@lacywhitevalenti7234 You seem to have misread the context. The ethical problem isn't the case, it's celebrating and promoting misinformation simply because it was _clever_ and effective. Please re-read my comment and apburner's again. I personally think our justice system is a pretty good one, but it's not infallible, and this was a definite and obvious failure. That's a lamentable happenstance. I would prefer a video looking at what went wrong here, not an examination of how to subvert truth.

@lacywhitevalenti7234 4 года назад

@@JosephDavies The juries decide on the evidence. Both sides have attorneys that frame the evidence and twist things, and it balances out in the end, far better than any other system would. Why are you so sure the jury was wrong here?

@Kaatia18 4 года назад

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.

@kaitlynne-raelandry8737 Год назад

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

@tim6582 4 года назад

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 Год назад

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

@Vallarok117 3 года назад

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

@NonBinaryBisexualAdhdAgender Год назад

Soooo impressed by Brent. He comes across as humble or at least not egotistical or big-noting himself, whilst it is impossible to miss just how clever/intelligent he is. I kept thinking "Wow, this is coming from a mid-thirties year old mind" followed by wondering when and how, at only mid forties, I'm already mindlessly assuming "the young" are all immature hooligans (I know they are not, but my unconscious mind occasionally sounds like the old lady that lived across the road when I was a child!!) But he really is exceptionally clever, insightful and obviously a prodigy in his chosen field. Couldn't help talking back to him/the TV with things like "damn mate, that's such a good idea/strategy. Thos guy really thinks of everything. Gotta be a genius " Anyway big congrats to him. And thank you for taking down Monsanto. Hopefully he'll have the opportunities to do many more positive things for the planet and the people on during his career. Can't wait for the day you interview him after he's helped put the Sackville family behind bars, dismantled the gun lobby, or ensured every person on the planet's natural right to free beer is ratified and implemented across the globe. I don't drink, so obviously it would be an honour to see his natural right be held up twice ,-) Thanks guys.

@daviddpg 4 года назад

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

@CLBOO6 4 года назад

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

@ross825 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@nihilisticspacelizard1868 4 года назад

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

@good-questions 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

@@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.

@SilentSalad 4 года назад

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

@AH-xs3hg 3 года назад

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 RU-vid series or something.

@Snagabott 4 года назад

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.

@mcj87 4 года назад

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) ;)

@pocketheart1450 2 года назад

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.

@yavannapr Год назад

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

@dstarfire42 4 года назад

Every time I see your channel logo in red, it reminds me of the food delivery "service" 'Door Dash'. Though, I suppose that'd be true of any company or product that used a stylized bird wing in a square-ish outline (i.e. proportioned to fit in an icon).

@wojtektolsdorf1738 4 года назад

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

@christopherarkwright4738 4 года назад

this is fantastic content, would love to see more of these kinda interviews

@ssfdre38 7 месяцев назад

I know this video is old but i enjoyed watching it. I know it's just 2 lawyers talking but the way they are talking about it and how they are showing what really happens in court is nice to see

@ForgottenHonor0 4 года назад

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

@jacobklunder8552 4 года назад

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

@LB-ou8wt 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

Probably like how US buy Alaska back then

@Praehotec 4 года назад

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

@jacobklunder8552 4 года назад

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

@djm192 2 года назад

Very helpful - I like the conversational style!

@misledprops 4 месяца назад

As an extremely minor Monsanto stockholder, this decision made me happy as hell. Despite the holdings, I was taught to believe in proven science, and to be willing to change my mind when new and proven facts come out

@kungfreddie 4 года назад

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.

@rom65536 4 года назад

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

@nihilisticspacelizard1868 4 года назад

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 4 года назад

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

@raccoonking7566 4 года назад

@@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 3 года назад

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.