Jump to full article: New Orleans (LA) Times Picayune, 2001-09-25
Author: KEVIN McGILL / The Associated Press
Intro: The state Supreme Court ordered the removal of three jurors and four alternate jurors from the panel that will decide a major class-action lawsuit against tobacco companies.
The lawsuit alleges that the tobacco industry manipulated nicotine levels to keep smokers hooked.
Tuesday's decision was at once a partial victory and a setback for the tobacco companies, who had argued that 12 jurors and alternates were too biased to decide the case because they had relatives who smoke or have smoked.
Those parents, spouses or siblings could qualify for industry-paid quit-smoking programs and medical monitoring if the smokers win the case.
But most of the seven Supreme Court judges hearing the case sided largely with plaintiff lawyers who said the issue was whether those jurors could make a fair decision, regardless of whether their relatives would benefit.
"We are convinced there is no legislative or jurisprudential support for defendants' position that all jurors with family members who are potential class members must be excluded from the jury," the unsigned majority opinion said. . .
Tuesday's decision, along with an earlier appeal court ruling tossing off other jurors, means four remaining alternate jurors will join the jury panel and more alternates will have to be selected before opening arguments can begin. . .
In the unsigned plurality opinion issued Tuesday, the court assessed the ability of each of the 12 to make a fair decision. For instance, the court noted that Juror No. 1 had told the court he once asked his mother and brother if they wanted to quit smoking, that he himself had once smoked and that he was unsure whether he would consider participating in a quit-smoking program.
His overall responses indicated he could be influenced by the availability of such programs and should have been thrown off the jury, the court said.
On the other hand, Juror No. 2, whose father was a former smoker, gave answers indicating she had not formed opinions that would affect her impartiality, the court said. . .
The suit is expected to take up to a year to try.
Jump to full article » |