Tobacco News on the Web Archive, May, 1997--Connor (Raulerson) Trial

CONNOR Trial News on the Web

Archive, May, 1997

Note: These articles wink in and out of existence with the frequency of sub-atomic particles. Many links will be dead. In that case, these pages can be approached as bibliographies, both noting the event, and showing where you might look for further information.

  • 05/04/97 CONNOR: Jury to Resume Deliberations Mon., 9AM Rueters

  • 05/08/97 Disapproving Jurors: We Let RJR Off the Hook Florida Times-Union
      "It was really quite alarming," said jury forewoman Laura Barrow, 26, a former smoker. "We really were letting R.J. Reynolds off the hook." . . . The jurors answered no to the first two questions they were asked: Was Reynolds negligent? And were the company's cigarettes dangerous and defective, and did they kill Connor? The judge told the panel Reynolds didn't have a responsibility to warn Connor about the risks of smoking if those risks were widely known - even before warning labels appeared on cigarette packs in the mid-'60s. Jurors said that was obvious and cited testimony from Lacy Ford, a University of South Carolina historian who appeared on Reynolds' behalf. . . "We had a hard moral dilemma on our hands in that we thought R.J. Reynolds knew more than they were telling and should have told," said Barrow, a CSX marketing analyst. ". . . Had they asked different questions [on the verdict form], possibly, there would have been a different outcome."
    • 05/09/97 OPINION: Objectivity is Important Florida Times-Union
        Many jurors disliked the tobacco company, but the judge told them to absolve it if the dangers of smoking were commonly known. They followed those instructions, basing their decision on evidence rather than emotion. "It was all we could do logically," a juror said of the verdict. That may not be politically correct, but it is admirable. Other juries should strive to be as conscientious.
    • 05/09/97 OPINION: Big Tobacco Dodges a Bullet Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe
        Tobacco won this week, but it knows the real score. People are deciding that the risks known to the individual smoker should pale next to big tobacco's responsibility for starting the chain reaction of death. The truth is beginning to stop the lies. One day, the industry may no longer be the respected patron of the arts and politicians. It will be just a murderer.

  • 05/09/97 EDITORIAL: Tobacco Victory is a Defeat for Public Health (Gary, IN) Post-Tribune POSTNet ("hot off the wires"--expires quickly)
      The Florida verdict . . . puts the brakes on a process that seemed to be moving in the right direction. The recent revelations by Liggett and the tobacco industry's apparent defensive posture at the negotiating table have powerful potential to shift public opinion, but they are so new to the public consciousness that they haven't sunk in yet. We can only hope the public gets the message sooner rather than too late.

  • 05/09/97 EDITORIAL: Smoking is a Personal Choice Orange County (CA) Register
      The bottom-line fact remains that smoking is a personal choice. There is and has been plenty of disclosure about the health risks and other hazards of smoking. Freedom means not only the freedom to do wise things, but the freedom to do foolish things -- provided no one else is harmed. If we allow the government to decide in ever more situations which of our actions are wise and which are foolish, then freedom itself is threatened.

  • 05/07/97 OPINION: Light Up a Lawsuit San Jose Mercury News
      The Connor verdict is a reminder that society has little sympathy for the self-destructive. The tobacco industry will not be brought to its knees by a stream of sick smokers asking for money. But the industry should be forced to take responsibility for the harm it does to the public, which is made up mostly of non-smokers. It must be regulated. It must be forced to stop marketing to children. And it must be billed for the public cost of treating smoking-related illness.

  • 05/07/97 EDITORIAL: Blowin' in the Wind SF Examiner
      Jean Connor may have killed herself by choosing to smoke, but her death was aided and abetted by an industry that didn't mind corpses piling up as long as they were replaced by fresh, young smokers. The tobacco industry should suffer the consequences of its own behavior.

  • 05/07/97 How RJR Won over CONNOR Jurors Sincere testimony of David Townsend, its poised and articulate head of RJR's new-product development, and "common knowledge" defense impress jury. The Wall Street Journal (Pay Registration)
      Jurors . . . had little doubt that smoking caused the lung-cancer death of Jean Connor at the age of 49, and they were incensed by Reynolds. But they felt they were legally bound to clear the company of any liability at the end of the monthlong trial on Monday. "We couldn't stand the fact that RJR was not being held responsible for anything," says 26-year-old Laura Barrow, the youngest of the six jurors and herself a former smoker. However, she explains, a scrupulous reading of the judge's instructions dictated a defense verdict.
  • 05/07/97 What's Next After CONNOR? Many More Cases Dow Jones (pay registration)
  • 05/07/97 Tobacco Figures Disperse Jacksonville Times-Union
  • 05/07/97 No Easy Victories in Tobacco Cases NY Newsday

  • 05/09/97 CONNOR Jury Instructions Provided by ASH
      Although there are probably many reasons for the loss, some jurors said they felt that cigarette companies should share some responsibility for the death and disability they cause, but that the judge's instructions precluded them from making the award.

  • 05/25/97 Why My Jury Let RJR Off Forewoman Laura T. Barrow, Washington Post
      As the jury forewoman, it was my job to hand the verdict to the bailiff. I was so nervous that I was shaking. . . But we weren't asked to make an emotional judgment; we were asked to make a legal decision, based on the evidence and the law. . . We all agreed that Reynolds had disregarded a moral responsibility to its customers. The company knew cigarettes can cause lung cancer; it chose not to disclose this and even raised doubts about it. But Reynolds's actions did not negate the fact that the risks were widely known. Did this release Reynolds from all liability? Not in our minds. But that question was not on our verdict form. . .According to the judge's instructions, a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers if the risks of a product are better known to the company than to the consumer. But, we were told, a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn if the hazards are "common knowledge."
    ASH has the CONNOR Jury Instructions

    ***********************
  • ©1997 Gene Borio, the Tobacco BBS (212-982-4645. WebPage: http://www.tobacco.org.)
  • Original Tobacco BBS material may be reprinted in any non-commercial venue if accompanied by this credit

    • ***********************
    Return to Tobacco BBS HomePage
    ***********************

    END OF DOCUMENT