WEBVTT - Voters Recall U.S. Judge for First Time Since 1977

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.119
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. For the first

0:00:22.160 --> 0:00:25.120
<v Speaker 1>time in almost ninety years, a California judge has been

0:00:25.120 --> 0:00:27.680
<v Speaker 1>removed from office by the state's voters because of a

0:00:27.800 --> 0:00:33.200
<v Speaker 1>lenient sentence in a sexual assault case. In Santa Clara County,

0:00:33.200 --> 0:00:37.320
<v Speaker 1>Superior Court judge Aaron Pursky sentence Stanford student Brock Turner

0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:40.320
<v Speaker 1>to just six months in jail for sexually assaulting a

0:00:40.360 --> 0:00:43.920
<v Speaker 1>woman who was unconscious. Prosecutors had asked for six years.

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:49.080
<v Speaker 1>Persky spoke with CBS News before the recall vote. If

0:00:49.080 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 1>a judge is thinking, in the back of his or

0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:54.480
<v Speaker 1>her mind, how is this going to look? How will

0:00:54.520 --> 0:00:58.080
<v Speaker 1>it look on social media? Will I be vilified on

0:00:58.640 --> 0:01:02.240
<v Speaker 1>cable news? That's the wrong avenue. We can't do that.

0:01:02.320 --> 0:01:05.560
<v Speaker 1>We shouldn't do that, and we shouldn't put judges in

0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:09.120
<v Speaker 1>a position where they fear it. Joining me is Joshua

0:01:09.200 --> 0:01:12.120
<v Speaker 1>Spevac and your fellow at the Hugh Carree, Institute for

0:01:12.240 --> 0:01:15.520
<v Speaker 1>Government Reform at Wagner College and founder of the Recall

0:01:15.640 --> 0:01:20.119
<v Speaker 1>Elections blog Joshua, Is this an isolated case or are

0:01:20.160 --> 0:01:24.800
<v Speaker 1>there implications for the future. There doesn't seem to be

0:01:24.840 --> 0:01:28.000
<v Speaker 1>too many. There aren't too many possibilities of a recall

0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:31.759
<v Speaker 1>of judges. Uh. They don't happen frequently. The last one

0:01:31.840 --> 0:01:35.319
<v Speaker 1>in the US was seventy seven, where somebody was removed,

0:01:35.360 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 1>and the last time they even got one on the

0:01:36.920 --> 0:01:43.520
<v Speaker 1>ballot was both in Wisconsin. Uh So, Well, there's always

0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 1>talk whenever there's a decision, whenever there's a controversial decision.

0:01:48.280 --> 0:01:50.960
<v Speaker 1>For instance Prop eight, when that came down, there was

0:01:51.120 --> 0:01:55.840
<v Speaker 1>threats of a recall. Uh famous California Supreme Court Chief

0:01:55.920 --> 0:01:59.960
<v Speaker 1>judge faced constant threats of a recall. Eventually she was

0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:03.800
<v Speaker 1>removed by retention election. But it's very hard to get

0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:07.360
<v Speaker 1>it on the ballot, so that you would need sort

0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:11.919
<v Speaker 1>of the firestorm of criticism, and as happened in this case,

0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 1>a lot of money um to to do. The real

0:02:15.320 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 1>hurdle is getting the signatures. Uh So, to get the

0:02:19.280 --> 0:02:22.760
<v Speaker 1>recall to the ballot is the problem. Who spearheaded this

0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:27.240
<v Speaker 1>recall effort and where did the money come from. It

0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:32.320
<v Speaker 1>was a Stanford University professor who led the effort, and

0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:36.440
<v Speaker 1>they seemed to raise the money, you know, on viral

0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:38.920
<v Speaker 1>a and on social media, and they did a very

0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:42.959
<v Speaker 1>good job fundraising and then using it effectively to get

0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:46.760
<v Speaker 1>the signatures. So it is possible to get this type

0:02:46.800 --> 0:02:50.679
<v Speaker 1>of action together, it's just quite difficult. So I want

0:02:50.720 --> 0:02:54.919
<v Speaker 1>to talk about some of Judge Persky's responses. He had

0:02:55.000 --> 0:02:58.520
<v Speaker 1>said that he had a legal and professional responsibility to

0:02:58.600 --> 0:03:02.760
<v Speaker 1>consider alternatives to imprisonment for first time offenders. Is that

0:03:02.800 --> 0:03:08.120
<v Speaker 1>a valid concern? I think that is. There's always this

0:03:08.360 --> 0:03:12.000
<v Speaker 1>concern with recalls, how what should they be allowed for,

0:03:13.080 --> 0:03:16.360
<v Speaker 1>what should they be used against judges? And from the

0:03:16.480 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>very beginning in California there was a real debate of

0:03:19.919 --> 0:03:23.240
<v Speaker 1>whether the recalls should be extended to judges. A number

0:03:23.240 --> 0:03:26.280
<v Speaker 1>of states do not extend it to judges for that reason,

0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:30.600
<v Speaker 1>and for instance, William Howard taft To actually vetoed the

0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:35.840
<v Speaker 1>Arizona Constitution originally until they removed a recall of judge provision.

0:03:36.480 --> 0:03:41.240
<v Speaker 1>So this is a long time debate. It hasn't played

0:03:41.280 --> 0:03:44.320
<v Speaker 1>out too much simply because there haven't been too many

0:03:44.640 --> 0:03:49.960
<v Speaker 1>uh judge recalls in US history. So Judge Persky claimed

0:03:49.960 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>that a recall causes judges to consider the reaction in

0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:57.720
<v Speaker 1>social media and the news when sentencing someone, and that

0:03:57.800 --> 0:04:01.440
<v Speaker 1>it's an attack on judicial independ endance. What are the

0:04:01.520 --> 0:04:05.960
<v Speaker 1>responses to that? They seem pretty good arguments. Yes, and

0:04:06.120 --> 0:04:09.040
<v Speaker 1>I think that actually the responses, that is the goal

0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:16.240
<v Speaker 1>that recalls when they were adopted, were to give a

0:04:16.400 --> 0:04:20.960
<v Speaker 1>push officials to have more of a response to popular opinion,

0:04:21.040 --> 0:04:26.400
<v Speaker 1>and including in that was judges. Uh, so he's not wrong,

0:04:26.600 --> 0:04:30.479
<v Speaker 1>it's just the the opinion, the desire to have a

0:04:30.520 --> 0:04:35.760
<v Speaker 1>recall is in many ways pushing that exact point that, yes,

0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:38.440
<v Speaker 1>we do want the judges to have more of a

0:04:38.520 --> 0:04:42.640
<v Speaker 1>feeling of what the popular will is, so let's go ahead.

0:04:43.760 --> 0:04:47.640
<v Speaker 1>So it's really how how valuable is that? How is

0:04:47.680 --> 0:04:51.360
<v Speaker 1>that dangerous? Or is that a positive? As the adopters

0:04:51.360 --> 0:04:53.680
<v Speaker 1>of the recall what they did in this case, the

0:04:53.720 --> 0:04:58.120
<v Speaker 1>sentence and the backlash prompted California lawmakers to change the law,

0:04:58.279 --> 0:05:03.360
<v Speaker 1>that seems a good response to this. Yeah, So that again,

0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:07.839
<v Speaker 1>that's very much in keeping with the ideology of the recall,

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:10.719
<v Speaker 1>that you would be able to do this, you would

0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:12.680
<v Speaker 1>be able to get a recall on the valid you'd

0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:16.400
<v Speaker 1>be able to exhibit voter anger and show it and

0:05:17.080 --> 0:05:20.400
<v Speaker 1>uh there would be a reaction from elected officials. So

0:05:20.480 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 1>this is in many ways part and parcel of the

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:28.080
<v Speaker 1>whole direct democracy movement. Does it make judges more political

0:05:28.200 --> 0:05:33.000
<v Speaker 1>than they already are? It's hard to say that one

0:05:33.080 --> 0:05:36.680
<v Speaker 1>or two recalls would do that, but judges have been

0:05:37.160 --> 0:05:40.880
<v Speaker 1>overall throughout the country. Uh, there does seem to be

0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:44.159
<v Speaker 1>more of a focus on the political politicalization of judges,

0:05:44.240 --> 0:05:47.520
<v Speaker 1>though since they're elected officials in many states, that's not

0:05:47.600 --> 0:05:51.719
<v Speaker 1>a surprise. UM. But we saw the Iowa judges removed

0:05:51.800 --> 0:05:56.839
<v Speaker 1>for their votes on gay marriage. The Wisconsin judge elections

0:05:56.880 --> 0:06:01.080
<v Speaker 1>were very highly contested, uh, and West Virginia had the

0:06:01.120 --> 0:06:05.839
<v Speaker 1>same thing. Where these just the appointment of judges becomes

0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:09.240
<v Speaker 1>a major issue in many ways. That was one of

0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:13.120
<v Speaker 1>the primary motivations in the two thousand and sixteen election

0:06:13.160 --> 0:06:15.479
<v Speaker 1>on the Supreme Court, and it does seem to be

0:06:15.520 --> 0:06:18.760
<v Speaker 1>a push for the Republicans in Congress, maybe their single

0:06:18.800 --> 0:06:21.480
<v Speaker 1>biggest issues. So the recall sort of fits in with

0:06:21.520 --> 0:06:26.800
<v Speaker 1>that whole politicalization of the judiciary. Right, we should mention

0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:31.920
<v Speaker 1>that Supreme Court justices and federal court judges cannot be recalled.

0:06:31.920 --> 0:06:37.239
<v Speaker 1>They're there for life. UM study of elected state judges

0:06:37.320 --> 0:06:40.480
<v Speaker 1>by n y U Law School concluded that judges are

0:06:40.560 --> 0:06:44.760
<v Speaker 1>influenced by their election cycles. The studied showed judges issuing

0:06:44.839 --> 0:06:48.479
<v Speaker 1>longer sentences for serious felony conviction when they're close to

0:06:48.520 --> 0:06:53.080
<v Speaker 1>re election. Now, that sort of that seems like it's

0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:59.159
<v Speaker 1>a bad result of having elected judges. Do you favor

0:06:59.200 --> 0:07:03.200
<v Speaker 1>appointed judge as are elected judges? Uh, you know, I

0:07:03.560 --> 0:07:06.239
<v Speaker 1>don't know which is better. I've seen in New York

0:07:07.320 --> 0:07:11.160
<v Speaker 1>there there's some a lot of negatives to having elected judges.

0:07:11.200 --> 0:07:15.320
<v Speaker 1>There were some corruption scandals surrounding that, as opposed to

0:07:15.360 --> 0:07:19.600
<v Speaker 1>the appointed judges. Where there it seems to be better

0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:22.440
<v Speaker 1>than New York State's UH Court of Appeals, the highest

0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:26.000
<v Speaker 1>court doesn't have elections. They have appointments, and they seem

0:07:26.080 --> 0:07:31.360
<v Speaker 1>to be well respected generally. Um, but it is it's

0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:36.800
<v Speaker 1>a matter of debate whether judicial officers should be elected.

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:39.200
<v Speaker 1>Uh Is this a good thing? Is it good that

0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:43.480
<v Speaker 1>they are uh influenced by voter opinion? Well, some people

0:07:43.520 --> 0:07:46.120
<v Speaker 1>would say yes, you know, they should be They should

0:07:46.240 --> 0:07:49.360
<v Speaker 1>be aware of what the will of the voters and

0:07:49.400 --> 0:07:52.320
<v Speaker 1>the will of the popula says, on the other hand,

0:07:52.640 --> 0:07:55.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, if they're changing their opinions, maybe that's not

0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:58.680
<v Speaker 1>a good thing. We've been debating this for quite some time,

0:07:58.760 --> 0:08:00.920
<v Speaker 1>and I suspect that we will continue to do so.

0:08:01.040 --> 0:08:04.680
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for your input. Joshua. That's Joshua Spivack.

0:08:04.760 --> 0:08:07.680
<v Speaker 1>He's a senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute

0:08:07.680 --> 0:08:15.760
<v Speaker 1>for Government Reform at Wagner College. The stakes are very

0:08:15.840 --> 0:08:18.240
<v Speaker 1>high in a Missouri trial where J and J is

0:08:18.280 --> 0:08:21.840
<v Speaker 1>defending itself against claims that it's sold its iconic baby

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>powder knowing it caused ovarian cancer. It's the biggest trial

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:28.400
<v Speaker 1>yet in the recent wave of cases against J and J.

0:08:28.840 --> 0:08:31.360
<v Speaker 1>Twenty two women are trying to link their illnesses to

0:08:31.440 --> 0:08:34.920
<v Speaker 1>exposure to asbestos in the company's talk. Joining me is

0:08:34.960 --> 0:08:38.400
<v Speaker 1>Howard Ericson, a professor at Fordham Law School. Howard, will

0:08:38.480 --> 0:08:42.319
<v Speaker 1>you explain how the allegations here are slightly different than

0:08:42.320 --> 0:08:48.120
<v Speaker 1>in other trials. Yes. In this case, the plaintiff, player

0:08:48.200 --> 0:08:52.480
<v Speaker 1>Mark Lanier is UM is pushing a theory that the

0:08:52.600 --> 0:08:58.040
<v Speaker 1>traces of asbestos in Malcolm powder caused ovarian cancer in

0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:02.240
<v Speaker 1>these twenty two women and UM and that's a theory

0:09:02.280 --> 0:09:05.000
<v Speaker 1>that hasn't been used in the in the prior ovarian

0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:09.880
<v Speaker 1>cancer cases. So is that a risky theory? Well, I

0:09:09.920 --> 0:09:14.520
<v Speaker 1>suppose that. I think it's a smart theory because there

0:09:14.520 --> 0:09:19.960
<v Speaker 1>have been recent plaintiffs verdicts in cases involving mesa seloma

0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:25.319
<v Speaker 1>that is an asbestos linked type of cancer, and I

0:09:25.360 --> 0:09:28.320
<v Speaker 1>think I think the plaintiff lawyer in this case is

0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:32.400
<v Speaker 1>hoping that those prior verdicts that have found that there

0:09:32.400 --> 0:09:37.240
<v Speaker 1>were traces of asbestos in uh in talcum powdern hoping

0:09:37.240 --> 0:09:41.160
<v Speaker 1>that will play out um similarly in the ovarian cancer cases.

0:09:41.200 --> 0:09:43.760
<v Speaker 1>But it does require new science and it remains to

0:09:43.800 --> 0:09:47.720
<v Speaker 1>be seen whether the jury will believe it. Mark, you

0:09:47.800 --> 0:09:50.959
<v Speaker 1>mentioned him. Lanier is representing the women and he's one

0:09:51.000 --> 0:09:55.079
<v Speaker 1>of the pre eminent plaintiff's lawyers in the countries. Billions

0:09:55.080 --> 0:09:57.240
<v Speaker 1>of dollar verdicts are par for the course with him.

0:09:57.360 --> 0:10:01.200
<v Speaker 1>Is his presence changing the scenario or changing it up

0:10:01.240 --> 0:10:04.559
<v Speaker 1>a little? Well, he's he's a big time trial lawyer.

0:10:04.559 --> 0:10:07.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, this is uh, this is a big trial.

0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:11.800
<v Speaker 1>You know, as you mentioned, it is the biggest case

0:10:11.840 --> 0:10:13.640
<v Speaker 1>to go to trial in the in the talk and

0:10:13.679 --> 0:10:18.400
<v Speaker 1>powder litigation with twenty two plaintiffs and all that. So

0:10:18.480 --> 0:10:20.680
<v Speaker 1>this is really this is the big at bat and

0:10:20.720 --> 0:10:23.480
<v Speaker 1>they are bringing up you know, the home run hitter

0:10:24.040 --> 0:10:27.600
<v Speaker 1>on and and as you say, he is accustomed to

0:10:27.600 --> 0:10:30.760
<v Speaker 1>winning big verdicts in mass torque cases. It is his

0:10:30.840 --> 0:10:34.960
<v Speaker 1>first talk trial. However, now is this case going to

0:10:35.000 --> 0:10:38.360
<v Speaker 1>be about the science and what the jury believes about

0:10:38.400 --> 0:10:42.000
<v Speaker 1>the science or will it be about documentation of whether

0:10:42.120 --> 0:10:45.600
<v Speaker 1>or not Jay and Jay knew it's product contained asbestos.

0:10:47.440 --> 0:10:51.400
<v Speaker 1>I have to assume the plaintiffs will want to emphasize

0:10:51.480 --> 0:10:56.280
<v Speaker 1>what Ja and Jay knew, because you can always find

0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:59.719
<v Speaker 1>a memo somewhere showing that someone at a company was

0:10:59.760 --> 0:11:03.640
<v Speaker 1>more read about something. I assume the descendant J and

0:11:03.720 --> 0:11:08.240
<v Speaker 1>J will want to emphasize the science and the you

0:11:08.280 --> 0:11:11.440
<v Speaker 1>know what is very much an open question of and

0:11:11.440 --> 0:11:14.000
<v Speaker 1>and something that it's not clear the plaintiffs can prove

0:11:14.160 --> 0:11:18.560
<v Speaker 1>that is the causal link between Telcom POWERN and ovarian cancer?

0:11:19.000 --> 0:11:24.000
<v Speaker 1>Have there have been many trials in different states, plaintiffs, verdicts, seems,

0:11:24.040 --> 0:11:28.720
<v Speaker 1>defense verdicts, appeals. Can you summarize where the litigation stands?

0:11:29.160 --> 0:11:32.360
<v Speaker 1>Is one side clearly winning most of the cases or

0:11:32.400 --> 0:11:37.760
<v Speaker 1>is it harder to read than that it's You cannot

0:11:37.800 --> 0:11:41.000
<v Speaker 1>say that one side is clearly winning. What you can

0:11:41.120 --> 0:11:48.040
<v Speaker 1>say is that in other states, particularly New Jersey and California, UM,

0:11:48.200 --> 0:11:52.319
<v Speaker 1>the defendants have had more success, and in Missouri plaintiffs

0:11:52.360 --> 0:11:55.240
<v Speaker 1>have had a lot of success. This case, of course,

0:11:55.360 --> 0:11:57.760
<v Speaker 1>is happening in St. Louis, Missouri, which is exactly where

0:11:57.760 --> 0:12:01.080
<v Speaker 1>the plaintiffs want to be. So how ared why are

0:12:01.120 --> 0:12:04.359
<v Speaker 1>our plaintiffs having more success in Missouri than in California

0:12:04.400 --> 0:12:10.680
<v Speaker 1>and New Jersey. Jurisdictions vary. They They vary in some

0:12:10.760 --> 0:12:13.520
<v Speaker 1>of their procedural rules. For instance, in SURI is pretty

0:12:13.559 --> 0:12:16.960
<v Speaker 1>liberal about allowing joinder, and that's one reason this case

0:12:17.040 --> 0:12:20.040
<v Speaker 1>is going forward with twenty two plaintiffs. They vary in

0:12:20.480 --> 0:12:25.040
<v Speaker 1>the judges. And Judge Burlison, who is overseeing this case,

0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:29.040
<v Speaker 1>has overseen other cases that have ended up with plaintiff verdicts,

0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:33.200
<v Speaker 1>and they differ in jury demographics, and I think the

0:12:33.720 --> 0:12:37.320
<v Speaker 1>I think the plaintiffs were happy to to try as

0:12:37.320 --> 0:12:40.199
<v Speaker 1>many of these cases in St. Louis as possible. Now,

0:12:40.400 --> 0:12:44.839
<v Speaker 1>let's talk about how these cases might affect a settlement

0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:47.840
<v Speaker 1>of some kind down the road. Or have we seen

0:12:47.960 --> 0:12:50.040
<v Speaker 1>have they seen enough of these cases to know where

0:12:50.080 --> 0:12:52.200
<v Speaker 1>they're going or are they going to have to try

0:12:52.240 --> 0:12:56.960
<v Speaker 1>a lot more in different states. Mass towards vary. There

0:12:57.040 --> 0:13:00.840
<v Speaker 1>is there are mass towards litigations in which the parties

0:13:00.880 --> 0:13:03.040
<v Speaker 1>are able to reach a global settlement before there is

0:13:03.080 --> 0:13:06.640
<v Speaker 1>a single trial verdict on this one has now seen

0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:11.640
<v Speaker 1>a number of trial verdicts. But um, but there's there's

0:13:11.679 --> 0:13:15.960
<v Speaker 1>no sign yet of any sort of global settlement. Um.

0:13:16.000 --> 0:13:19.120
<v Speaker 1>You know, obviously the outcome of a case like this

0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:23.040
<v Speaker 1>will have an enormous bearing on the settlement negotiation dynamics.

0:13:23.720 --> 0:13:26.720
<v Speaker 1>Which is, the stakes are high, not simply because it

0:13:26.840 --> 0:13:30.160
<v Speaker 1>is a twenty two plaintiff case with um with a

0:13:30.160 --> 0:13:33.720
<v Speaker 1>lot of money at states in this judgment. Um, the

0:13:33.760 --> 0:13:35.840
<v Speaker 1>stakes are also high because this is going to change

0:13:35.840 --> 0:13:40.000
<v Speaker 1>the momentum one way or another in terms of settlement negotiations. Howard,

0:13:40.679 --> 0:13:44.119
<v Speaker 1>is this similar in any way to the tobacco litigation

0:13:44.320 --> 0:13:47.800
<v Speaker 1>in and by that I mean that the cases are tried,

0:13:47.840 --> 0:13:50.320
<v Speaker 1>You hear about verdicts, and then there's an appeal after

0:13:50.320 --> 0:13:53.040
<v Speaker 1>an appeal, after an appeal, and you you know, down

0:13:53.040 --> 0:14:00.199
<v Speaker 1>the road, no one is getting paid any settlements. The

0:14:00.880 --> 0:14:04.160
<v Speaker 1>guest to get too much there, right, the tobacco litigation

0:14:04.200 --> 0:14:08.280
<v Speaker 1>went decades without a penny being paid, and then all

0:14:08.320 --> 0:14:10.520
<v Speaker 1>of a sudden in the nine nineties things kind of

0:14:10.559 --> 0:14:13.960
<v Speaker 1>turned around with this with the Attorney General cases, I

0:14:14.000 --> 0:14:16.360
<v Speaker 1>think this is a bit different. I think this is

0:14:16.400 --> 0:14:19.760
<v Speaker 1>following a path more like the biox litigation or other

0:14:19.800 --> 0:14:23.520
<v Speaker 1>pharmaceutical mass towards where there are a number of cases,

0:14:23.560 --> 0:14:26.080
<v Speaker 1>but it's all moving very quickly. This is really just

0:14:26.160 --> 0:14:30.800
<v Speaker 1>the past couple of years, the number of cases has exploded, um,

0:14:30.920 --> 0:14:33.840
<v Speaker 1>and the trials are moving quickly. So it seems to

0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:35.920
<v Speaker 1>me the pace of this is all really quite quick

0:14:36.640 --> 0:14:40.520
<v Speaker 1>and um, so look down the road with about thirty

0:14:40.560 --> 0:14:43.600
<v Speaker 1>five seconds here, how how long before we see some

0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:48.920
<v Speaker 1>kind of definitive move or a payment or something like that.

0:14:50.520 --> 0:14:53.680
<v Speaker 1>You can't predict when Jay and j is going to

0:14:53.800 --> 0:14:58.520
<v Speaker 1>decide um that there is an appealing settlement to be had.

0:14:58.600 --> 0:15:00.640
<v Speaker 1>It seems to me all eyes right an hour on

0:15:00.800 --> 0:15:04.480
<v Speaker 1>this trial which could last a month, and how this

0:15:04.600 --> 0:15:07.760
<v Speaker 1>jury reacts to the scientific evidence. Well, we always appreciate

0:15:07.800 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 1>your coming on with these mass toward cases, which is

0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:14.040
<v Speaker 1>your expertise. That's Howard Ericson, a professor at Fordham Law School.

0:15:14.160 --> 0:15:17.120
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

0:15:17.160 --> 0:15:20.840
<v Speaker 1>subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:15:20.960 --> 0:15:24.880
<v Speaker 1>and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:15:25.320 --> 0:15:26.640
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg