Tobacco.org

SCOTT v. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY (PDF) 

Relators filed this supervisory writ to challenge, once again, the jury selection process in the ongoing, complex tobacco litigation. Relators contend that the district court first erred by “preparing” the jurors for the

voir dire questions that would be asked and relators contend that this advance preparation essentially told the prospective jurors how to answer the questions if they wanted to be selected for the jury panel. Additionally, relators assert that the district court erred in failing to grant their cause challenges relative to five (5) prospective jurors on the basis of the prospective juror having family members who are smokers and/or former smokers and the prospective juror evidenced an interest in having the family member receive the medical monitoring and/or cessation programs if awarded against defendants. Relators argue that based on the recent (9/25/01) Louisiana Supreme Court opinion, see attached, which addressed this precise issue when it came up last fall, the jurors at issue here should have been excused for cause as challenged by the defendants.

Although the defendants initially sought a per se rule to exclude any prospective juror having a family member who is a potential class member, the supreme court declined to impose such a bright line rule for the jury selection process in this case. The supreme court noted:

Despite defendants’ argument to the contrary, there is nothing in La. Code Civ. P. art. 1765(3) which would suggest the lesiglature intended a “bright line” rule which would automatically exclude a prospective juror for cause merely because that prospective juror may be influenced by a family relation. Rather, that article, which is phrased in permissive language, provides that a juror may be challenged for cause if the juror’s blood relations are such that it must be reasonably believed that they would influence the juror in coming to a verdict: . . . . (emphasis in original). . . .

For the aforementioned reasons the defendants’ assignments of error are denied as to Jurors ## 15, 16, 18, 20, Q, S, and T. Additionally, the district court’s ruling as to Juror #21 is reversed and Juror # 21 is dismissed for cause.

Jump to full article »