A San Francisco Superior Court jury awarded a historic $289 million verdict against the agrochemical conglomerate Monsanto. A California judge is considering taking away that jury award for punitive damages. When we learned that Dewayne "Lee" Johnson had taken Monsanto to court saying he got his terminal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from on-the-job exposure to Monsanto's ubiquitous weed killer, Roundup, we were so captured by Johnson's battle that we traveled to San Francisco to watch the trial. Johnson's was the first of some 4,000 similar claims headed for courts across America. The judge appeared to be bending over backward to help Monsanto. Johnson's jury heard evidence that, for four decades, Monsanto maneuvered to conceal Roundup's carcinogenicity by capturing regulatory agencies, corrupting public officials, bribing scientists, ghostwriting science and engaging in scientific fraud. The jury found that these activities constituted "malice, fraud and oppression" warranting $250 million in punitive damages. We were among the many who applauded. However, California judges have the power to reduce, or even eliminate, a jury award. The jurors would be shocked to know that the product of their weeks of careful consideration ... could be thrown out at the whim of a judge who disagrees with the verdict. If a judge intervenes to alter their verdict, then what, after all, is the point of having jurors?