Tobacco.org

The plaintiff's attorneys continued to present the government's opening statement. Ms. Eubanks discussed the development of a "gentlemen's agreement" to restrict in-house biological research. She contended that the defendants refused to provide useful information to the Tobacco Working Group and made other efforts to stymie or neutralize research. She discussed the defendants' promotion and marketing of low-tar and nicotine cigarettes as a way of reducing the risk of adverse health effects. She said that smokers believed the implied message: "low tar cigarettes are less harmful." Mr. Marine then summarized the evidence that will be introduced to show the defendants targeted youth with their advertising. He cited internal documents as proof that the industry viewed youth as replacement smokers. He accused the industry of document destruction and cited specific instances. . . .

105 pages

The witness, an attorney with Shook, Hardy and Bacon Law Firm, testified as a fact witness on behalf of the defendant. He responded to Dr. Schwartz's testimony that everyone deferred to Mr. Hoel regarding environmental tobacco smoke. He laughed at Dr. Schwartz's assertion that Mr. Hoel "seemed to be in charge of the entire industry." He discussed his firm's responsibility to protect the tobacco industry in product liability actions and to ensure the industry's continued viability. He described the positions of Brown & Williamson, American Tobacco Company and Philip Morris on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke. The witness explained the process of the Special Projects on environmental tobacco smoke. The testimony ended abruptly as Mr. Hoel was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. . . .

Jump to full article »