Tobacco Documents Online

r> 0 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD c July 12, 1978 Re: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. John McAward., East Boston District Court, East Boston, Massachusetts, July 11, 1978. The court action orn this date is a continuation of the procedeings begun on June 15, 1978. It involves John McAward, a nonsmoking passenger aboard an American Airlines flight scheduled to depart Logan Airport at 7:05 a.m., May 15, 1978 on a scheduled flight to New York's Laguardia Airport. As covered in my Memorandum for Record of June 20, 1978, Mr. McAward is charged with "obstruction of a flight crew". TESTIMONY (July 11, 1978) Persons testifying before the court on this date included: the ground services supervisor for American Airlines, the arresting Massachusetts State Trooper, and the defendant. According to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the following set of circumstances transpired following the return of the aircraft to the gate area of Logan Airport: 1. Ground supervisor boards plane and is informed that the pilot is having difficulty with a passenger; 2. Pilot requests that passenger be removed from aircraft; 3. Ground supervisor approaches Mr. McAward and asks him to deplane to discuss the situation, and allow the other 100 passengers to continue their flight; 4. Mr. McAward refuses to leave the plane, insisting that he be provided with a nonsmoking seat (Ignoring the fact that the flight attendant had informed the passengers that the entire plane was non-smoking); 5. Ground supervisor checks with his superiors and calls for State Police, who have already responded to an earlier call and have blocked any movement of the aircraft. Although it is not stated, the action taken by the State Police seems to indicate that they thought there was some possibility that the problem on the aircraft could include the possibility of violence;

ME MORANDUM FOR RECQRD - 2 -~ • c. TESTIMONY (Cont.) c 6. Ground supervisor returns to Mr. McAward and requests that he leave the plane; 7. Mr. McAward informs the Ground supervisor that he will not leave voluntarily; 8. Ground supervisor discusses situation with State Troopers, and requests that they approach the passenger; 9. State Troopers approach Mr. McAward and requests that he leave the plane; 10. Mr. McAward informs the Troopers to take him any way they have to, but he will not leave the plane; 11. State Troopers place ;.2r. MCAwarrd underarrest. Finally, although there was no testimony as to the attitudes of the other passengers aboard the flight, with the exception of those smokers seated in the row with Mr.McAward, the State Trooper did indicate that as they were leading '4r.McAward from the plane many of the passengers jeered Mr. McAward and applauded his arrest. The Trooper indicated that the jeers came as they passed people on the way out of the plane. Since Mr. McAward was seated in the first row of the original smoking section, and the smoking section is at the rear of the cabin, it wo uld appear that much of the abuse received by Mr.McAward was given to him by the non-smoking passengers on the plane. Mr. McAward's testimony does not differ substantially from that of the prosecution's witnesses. Fie does indicate that there was no mention made that the entire plane was non-smoking: However, his testimony tends to paint a picture of a quiet man quietly trying to have his rights observed by the flight cre.w on the aircraft. The difference in the attitude displayed on the day of the flight by Mr. McAward, as related by Mr. McAward and by the flight crew is extreme. While Mr. McAward portrays himself as someone who was quietly fighting for his rights, the flight crew remembers an entirely different individual. The individual remembered by the flight crew was rude, insulting the smoking passengers aboard the aircraft, and belligerent, attempting to yell into the cockpit at the captain during ~ take-off. ~ w Although the presentation of the case was fairly straight Gn forward, Mr. McAward did slin the purpose of his trip to ~ °1ew York, which was delaved considerably, into his testi~^ony. W The only purpose for this was to attempt to gain the sympathy of the court. Mr. McAward it seems is the Associate Director of the International

t/Z-MORANDUM FOR RECORD - 3 TESTIMONY (cont.) Section of the Unitarial Universalist Committee. The Committee is a non-profit, non-sectarian group involved in social development work in primarily third world countries, although they do some work in the United States. Mr. McAward's trip to New York was for the purpose of providing a $90,000 grant to a group planning to engage in "planned parenthood" activities in Haiti in the Carribean Ocean. PRESS COVERAGE There was a reporter sent snecifically to cover this trial by the Boston Herald-American. The reporter spoke with Mr. McAward and his attorney prior to the conclusion of the trial. He seemed to become very friendly with the defendant and spent a period of time discussing not the trial but his personal aspirations as a reporter. While the purpose of Mr. McAward's trip to New York seems not to have moved the court, it was not lost on the reporter. OUTSIDE SUPPORT As with the first day of the trial, there was no anti-smoking activity at the trial. In fact, I was the only observer oresent in the court room. VERDICT The court found that Mr..14cAward was guilty of the felony of Qb7,tr>>nfinc a fliaht cr~. A fine of $200.00 plus $50.00 court fees were imposed. In making the ruling, the court found that Mr. McAward, a frequent traveller was aware of the rules and regulation restricting passenger movement in the cabin of an aircraft during take-off and landing. Therefore, he knew he was in violation of those rules when he followed the flight attendant forward to the cocknit. Further, that his actions, individually and taken as a whole, resulted in the captain of the aircraft returning the aircraft to the gate. Also, that his actions created a safety hazard for both himself and the other passengers aboard the aircraft. Mr. McAward and his attorney indicated that he ~faould aoneal the decision of the court. That appeal will be taken up in the Suffolk County Superior Court. The date will be announced at a later date. Dennis M. Dyer