Internal Monsanto records show a coordinated effort to get the Seralini paper retracted, including this email string. Even as both sides prepare for a second phase, the lack of a quick jury decision does not bode well for Hardeman. His attorneys were hoping for a quick unanimous decision by the jurors in their favor.
Home - DCMS blog
Any decision by the jury must be unanimous or the case can be declared a mistrial. Pacific time — Jury has retired for the evening with no verdict. Deliberations to resume Friday. Judge Chhabria instructed lawyers for both sides to be ready to present opening statements for the second phase of the trial today if jurors come back this morning with a verdict. The second phase only occurs, however, if the jurors first find unanimously for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman in the first phase, which dealt solely with the question of causation.
Did Mr. It will take all six jurors to answer yes to that question in order for the trial to continue. If the jurors are split in how they answer the question, the judge has said he would declare a mistrial. The jurors are allowed to request to look at specific exhibits and pieces of evidence but they are not allowed to see transcripts of the previous days of testimony. If jurors return a verdict in favor of Hardeman on Wednesday afternoon, opening statements for phase two will take place Friday.
UPDATE: Research and Bibliography for Korean Law Resources in English
They plan to select 17, with 12 jurors and five alternates. The case may not begin until March 27 or March 28 due to the lengthy jury selection process. Pacific Time — Closing arguments are completed. The jury has received instructions for deliberations. Closing arguments got underway Tuesday. With the first phase of Hardeman V. He did say, however, that he could modify the instructions slightly to try to address the concerns.
Meanwhile, in the upcoming Pilliod V. Monsanto case , motion hearings and discussion of hardship claims for prospective jurors begins next week in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, not far from downtown San Francisco where the Hardeman case may still be underway if it goes to the second phase. Opening statements in the Pilliod trial could begin March 21 but more likely will take place March 25 or later depending on how long the jury selection process takes.
See video update here. Judge Chhabria said last week that he would like to see this first phase of the trial wrapped up early this week, meaning the case should be with the jury soon. The judge will define for jurors what that means. If the jury does not unanimously decide either for Hardeman or Monsanto then the case would be a mistrial. Chhabria has also said that if that happens he is considering retrying it in May. If the jury finds for Hardeman on causation, the trial would quickly move into Phase II using the same jury.
And that is where things will really start to get interesting. Grant spent more than 35 years at the company and was named CEO in He led the company until its acquisition by Bayer AG last summer. Lawyers for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman rested their case on Friday, giving Monsanto a turn to put on its own witnesses in this first phase of the case. A substantial factor is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor.
If you conclude that Mr. Hardeman has proven that his exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his NHL, then you should find for Mr. Hardeman has proven that his exposure to Roundup was sufficient on its own to cause his NHL, then you should find for Mr.
- Death Is Only A Horizon: Thoughts in Time of Bereavement.
- Liberty and Democracy (Hoover Institution Press Publication) - PDF Free Download.
- Sailing Into Darkness (Women In Chains Book 4);
Hardeman even if you believe that other risk factors were also sufficient to cause his NHL. Monsanto expert witness Dr. Several new documents have been filed by both parties related to evidence and jury instructions. Monsanto cannot prevail on a motion for summary judgment by simply ignoring large swaths of evidence. The complaint also alleges that Litzenburg admitted to using drugs during the Johnson trial. Members of the trial team were concerned that Mr. The Miller Firm and Litzenburg will make their first appearance in their litigation against each other in an Orange, Virginia courtroom on May Expert witness for the plaintiff Dr.
Dennis Weisenburger was being cross examined Wednesday by Monsanto attorneys after extensive direct testimony for cancer victim Edwin Hardeman. He followed testimony by Hardeman, who spoke for just less than an hour under direct examination about his use of Roundup for decades before his cancer diagnosis in No proceedings are scheduled for Thursday. The Pilliod case will be the third to go to trial challenging Monsanto and its new owner Bayer over alleged carcinogenicity of Roundup products.
After a break in testimony Monday due to a sick juror, cancer victim Edwin Hardeman is slated to take the stand today in the ongoing Roundup cancer trial in federal court in San Francisco. His testimony is expected to take less than an hour. Judge Chhabria indicated the trial will proceed today without the woman juror if she remains ill. Only six jurors are required for the case to move forward and currently there are seven.
He even made a bit of a joke:. James Parry was a consultant hired by Monsanto in the s to weigh in on genotoxicity concerns being raised at the time by outside scientists. Well, Monsanto has a report from a doctor that it hired that — that raised concerns about the genotoxicity of glyphosate. So it seems to me that you are — you have already said something to the jury — even before we get to your second point, you have already said something to the jury that is contradicted to a degree by an internal Monsanto document.
But one juror apparently is too ill to endure the long trial day so testimony is being postponed. Weisenburger, who specializes in the study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma NHL , was a key witness for the general pool of plaintiffs a year ago when he testified before Judge Vince Chhabria as the judge weighed then whether or not to let the mass of Roundup cancer claims move forward.
Weisenburger has published over 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals about the causes of NHL. The whole first phase of the trial was expected to have been concluded by Friday or Monday, lawyers said. Hardeman used Roundup from to treat weeds and overgrowth on a acre property he and his wife owned in Sonoma County. Here is an interesting tidbit to chew on over the weekend. Could there be some connection between Chhabria and Monsanto? Chhabria has a pretty stellar background. Born and raised in California, he obtained his law degree in from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, graduating with honors.
He was nominated by President Obama for the seat he holds now in the summer of But interestingly, one of those law firms where Chhabria worked has raised eyebrows. Covington is perhaps best known for its work for the tobacco industry. A judge in Minnesota in ruled that the firm was willfully disregarding court orders to turn over certain documents pertaining to claims that the tobacco industry engaged in a year conspiracy to mislead the public about the health impacts of smoking and hide damaging scientific research from public view.
But he is also no stranger to the world of corporate power and influence. How those dots connect in this case is so far unclear. And after the fast and furious first three days of the trial, they probably can use the break. The testimony was provided via a video recorded in Australia last week. I was reflecting on the OSC hearing last night, and I wanted to clarify one thing. I gave a list of reasons why I thought your conduct was intentional, and one of those reasons was that you seemed to have prepared yourself in advance for — that you would get a hard time for violating the pretrial rulings.
I was using steely as an adjective for steeling yourself, which is to make yourself ready for something difficult and unpleasant. My point was that I perceived no surprise on your part; and since lawyers typically seem surprised when they are accused of violating pretrial rulings, that was relevant to me on the issue of intent.
So I know you continue to disagree with my ruling and my findings about intent, but I wanted to make that point very clear. One of the seven women jurors has been dismissed in morning proceedings. That leaves one man and six women. A total of six jurors are required and all must be unanimous in their verdict. At issue — various remarks made by Wagstaff that Judge Chhabria thought exceeded the tight restrictions he has placed on what evidence the jury can hear.
He also instructed the jury more than once not to consider what Wagstaff said as evidence. Below is a portion of those proceedings from Tuesday.
- The Man Who Saved Two Notch?
- Difficult Diabetes (Type 2 Diabetes Series)!
- Spys Honor: The Hearts and Thrones Series!
- Little White Lies:Book #1 (The Girlfriends Series).
- Trial of a Thousand Years: World Order and Islamism by Charles Hill.
- 101 Self-Care Hacks - A Cheat Sheet to More Self-Love.
- System Error Occurred..
References to Moore mean Jennifer Moore, who is co-counsel on the Hardeman case. She was clearly ready for it. She clearly braced herself for the fact that I was going to come down hard on her. And she was — to her credit perhaps, she was very steely in her response to my coming down hard on her because she knew it was coming and she braced herself for that.
The fact that I can handle you coming down in front of a jury should not be used against me. I have been coming in front of you now for, what, three years. And the fact that I was prepared for anything that you had to say to me — and that you interrupted my opening statement a few times in a row — should not be used against me.
The fact that I have composure when you are attacking me, it should not be used against me. That is relevant to bad faith. The fact that the Plaintiffs have made so clear that they are so desperate to get this information into Phase One is evidence that it was not just a mistake that they happen to put this information in their opening statements. What I was trying to explain is that the way the trial is set up is unusual.