we can speak to ronald sullivan, he's director of the criminal justice institute at harvard law school. we joined this from newton, massachusetts. thank you for your time, sir. nearly a $1000000000.00 in damages. we expecting such a result double what the plaintiffs had requested. i can't say that i expected a $1000000000.00. i expected a really, really big verdict, but this is unprecedented. this is the largest verdict against an individual that i've ever ever seen. so i expect a lot, but not this much. what i find extraordinary is alex jones made millions of dollars over the years falsely describing the shooting is a high accent. keesing, the victims families of being act is complicit in the plot. but there appeared to be questions now around whether he can actually pay out these families. well, i don't have the sense that alex jones is a billionaire. that is, has multi billions of dollars and can actually afford a $1000000000.00 verdict. what will happen though, is that plaintiff's council will go after all the assets that he does have in those assets will get split up between the p

starting their 1st job ranking stuff rosalind jordan left for us in washington like you were ronald, ronald sullivan is direct of the criminal justice institute at harvard law school. he explained to me earlier that it's unlike 8 alex jones has the funds to pay the awarded damages. plaintiff's counsel will go after all the assets that he does have and those assets will get split up between the parties. the plaintiffs consistent with the way that the jury ruled. we have several options. first, they will file what's called a motion of remitted tor remitted or is a latin word in the american judicial system. that simply means that the judge can remit or lower the verdict without ordering a new trial. so he can ask the for this remitted tour one to fury that the verdict as outsized. that doesn't work. you can ask for a new trial. if that doesn't work, you can appeal this jury wanted to send an unmistakably clear message that what joe's did was not okay. when it comes to a verdict over and above what the plaintiffs ask for a jury's ab enormous discretion. so you can have essentially the same facts presen

potentially eventually he might pay a very steep price. particle, hain al jazeera washington, but ronald sullivan as a professor of law at harvard. he says it's unlikely alex jones has the funds to pay the damages. plaintiff's council will go after all the assets that he does have and those assets will get split up between the parties. the plaintiffs, consistent with the way that the jury a rude. we are several options 1st, they will file what's called a motion of remitted tour remitted or is a latin word in the american judicial system. that simply means that the judge can remit or lower the verdict without ordering a new trial. so he can ask the for this remitted tor want to theory that the verdict is outside of that doesn't work. you can ask for a new trial. if that doesn't work, he can appeal this jury wanted to send an unmistakably clear message that what joe's did was not okay when it comes to verdicts over and above what the plaintiffs ask for a jury's hab enormous discretion. so you can have essentially the same facts presented to different juries in different jurisdictions and get radica