On Friday, the jury in Alex Jones’ defamation trial heard evidence about his net worth. At the close of the trial, the jury awarded the two parents $45.2 million as punitive damages. That is much less than the $150 million they had sought. But, after the trial, the parents, Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis were satisfied. Ms. Lewis said she believed Alex Jones had been held accountable. She said that when she confronted Mr. Jones from the witness stand, she thought of the courage of her son Jesse, who told his classmates to run. Her son stood up to a bully and so did his mother, added Ms. Lewis. The mother said love is a choice. She hopes Mr. Jones has learned some values.
Mr. Jones’ attorney, Andino Reynal, said they would appeal. He said he believes the court will reduce the amount of punitive damages. He pointed to a state law that caps damages to $750,000 per plaintiff. It actually caps punitive damages at twice the amount of compensatory damages times two, plus $750,000. In any event, there is still one more defamation case pending in Travis County and one more in Connecticut.
One expert testified Friday that Mr. Jones withdrew $67 million in 2021. That means he likely has that amount or more stashed somewhere. An economist testified that Jones and his companies were worth $270 million. One estimate outside of court has said he started taking in $50 million per year starting with his lies about Sandy Hook and then moving on to other conspiracies, such as the supposedly stolen election. During his testimony, Jones was asked about an internal memo which showed he had grossed $800,000 in selling vitamin supplements and other products in one day. That amount would result in gross revenue of $300 million per year.
Mr. Reynal again asked the judge to order the plaintiffs to return the contents of Jones’ phone. Mr. Reynal told the judge they only became aware of the inadvertent disclosure while Mr. Jones was on the stand. No, replied, the judge, you showed me the email about that erroneous disclosure 12 days before Jones testified. Reynal responded it was Judge Gamble’s “prerogative” to disagree with their “position.” The judge laughed, and said, yes, it is her prerogative to disagree with the written word in front of her. That means the defense lawyer was taking a “position” with which he did not necessarily agree. The judge then laughed at him taking a position that disagrees with the written email. It seems apparent. Mr. Reynal was forced to take a “position” by his client regarding the erroneous disclosure.
See San Antonio Express News report here for more information.