Comments on: Carvin’s Charges http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2008/10/16/carvins-charge/ Blogging U.S. vs. Philip Morris, Inc. Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:51:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Jon Krueger http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2008/10/16/carvins-charge/#comment-64273 Jon Krueger Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:04:36 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2008/10/16/carvins-charge/#comment-64273 Just happened to see Scarface last night. The mob attorney assures the crime boss "the law says you have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I am an expert at creating a reasonable doubt". When the full history of the industry that killed 20 million Americans is written, tobacco lawyers will get their own chapter and it will be a substantial one. Getting their clients a license to kill has been a major undertaking and hugely financially rewarding. There is no question the tobacco industry would have been unable to get away with everything it has, without its lawyers. Not proven! Always the cry. You got nothing on me! You can't prove it! You can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt! And my lawyer is world class at creating a reasonable doubt. Yes, of course in a civil trial the standard is preponderance of evidence, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fundamentals are the same: not proven! Just happened to see Scarface last night. The mob attorney assures the crime boss “the law says you have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I am an expert at creating a reasonable doubt”. When the full history of the industry that killed 20 million Americans is written, tobacco lawyers will get their own chapter and it will be a substantial one. Getting their clients a license to kill has been a major undertaking and hugely financially rewarding. There is no question the tobacco industry would have been unable to get away with everything it has, without its lawyers.

Not proven! Always the cry. You got nothing on me! You can’t prove it! You can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt! And my lawyer is world class at creating a reasonable doubt.

Yes, of course in a civil trial the standard is preponderance of evidence, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fundamentals are the same: not proven!

]]>