Archive for June, 2005

TIP FOR WITNESSES: Read Your Depositions

Wednesday, June 15th, 2005

Updated Jun 16, 2005, 6:33 AM
The Rosens, Meyer and Selma, as much as they may have suffered and struggled, are not coming off as particularly sympathetic. Worse, they may have serious credibility issues in the minds of jury members.
Certainly, if your two 500-page depositions were 5 years ago, you’re not going to remember everything you […]

ROSEN: Meyer Rosen Testifies

Wednesday, June 15th, 2005

Covering a product liability trial is very different from covering the government’s RICO suit. In the New York State Supreme Court courthouse in Mineola, everything brought me back to something about the DOJ trial. I couldn’t help comparing the judges, the cafeterias, the press rooms, the courtroom itself and the lawyers.
But mostly I thought […]

ROSEN: Was Selma Rosen’s Cancer Tobacco-Related?

Monday, June 13th, 2005

Mineola, NY. Cornell Medical College’s Dr. David Yankelevitz was asked Monday morning about the nature of Selma Rosen’s lung cancer.
Defense attorney Dan Russo attempted to call his testimony into question by:
1. Pointing out he could not identify when he actually saw Selma Rosen’s 1995 CT-Scan, the one that showed the tell-tale nodule.
2. Pointing out […]

THU, DAY 115: DOJ Eviscerates its own National Cessation Plan

Thursday, June 9th, 2005

UPDATE: Jun 9, 2005, 4:05 PM to clarify(!) eligibility for National Cessation Plan
The morning session began with PM USA attorney Dan Webb rebutting DOJ’s remedies as unworkable and unavailable to Judge Kessler under RICO. He referred to Tuesday’s reduction of National Cessation Plan costs and asked Judge Kessler,
“What does that tell you about […]

Kessler Sets Post-Trial Filings; Mandates Hyper-links

Thursday, June 9th, 2005

On Wed., June 8, Judge Kessler issued Order # 964, detailing the Post-trial filing schedule. The order sides with the DOJ on simultaneous, not staggered, submissions.
The Findings of Fact are limited to 2,500 pages, and,
All proposed Findings of Fact shall contain hyperlinks to any testimony and exhibits upon which they rely which have already been […]

WED, DAY 114: Tobacco Case Gets Attention

Thursday, June 9th, 2005

Courtroom # 19 was certainly packed Wednesday, and some observers may have felt the trial is finally getting the amount of attention it deserves–though not for the issues at trial, but for the radical and unexplained cut in DOJ’s request for monies to fund Dr. Michael Fiore’s national smoking cessation plan.
The problem with the DOJ’s […]

TUE, DAY 113: DOJ Slashes National Cessation Plan Costs

Wednesday, June 8th, 2005

The nice thing about the Prettyman Federal Courthouse press room that virtually everyone there is sharp, alert, hard-working, fun-loving and cooperative. It’s a pretty lively place to work, and the professionals there seem to have accepted the uncredentialed blogger in their midst with the utmost grace and charm.
They certainly had their own feelings at the […]

TUE: DOJ Closing Argument

Tuesday, June 7th, 2005

DOJ attorney Sharon Eubanks began the government’s closing argument by stating what the DOJ wants as RICO remedies:
1. Defendants must make corrective statements
2. The establishment of a nationwide cessation program.
3. Defendants must fund educational and counter-marketing campaigns undertaken by 3rd parties.
4. Additional restrictions on youth marketing. No use of youth-oriented imagery and the reduction of […]

Simultaneous or Staggered? Fight over PFOFs

Tuesday, June 7th, 2005

Back in January, during DOJ lawyer Carolyn Hahn’s examination of Lorillard VP and General Counsel Ronald Milstein, B&W’s David Bernick objected to a document that had “no nexus to the case.” On the contrary, Ms. Hahn said, “it was cited in our PFOFs.”
Mr. Bernick has had very few moments of befuddlement in the 9 months […]

Sources say Closings Go Ahead as Scheduled

Friday, June 3rd, 2005

2 separate sources (which could stem from the same source) have told me closing arguments will go ahead as planned this Tue, Wed, Thu, June 7, 8, and 9.
This means, it sez here, there will be no rebuttal case. But anything’s possible . . .