Tobacco Documents Online

N.rYmk 12IDY1S2010 Ga a.wm R)3/9Ri0711 Cik.s- p7Adl3•1731 lDililMlti+ RJH5WOM Sanfraadsae N797i3-T6r + 8Cr1ea (BI712662r21 INd/r W99tP8S96 IVqSingfN RDD87JJJ10 /lNtsbm p1a789-16tf IG.M p699636B1 - VIDEO MONlTORlN6 9w~ ak.add s,.~ ~ SERVICES OFaMPRICA LP- pAY 687-7/62 R03a5iJdb9 t5135 o(`Iffio (`Iffi 38 MO lalca Rn eQ Srin 312 '33RUM,n ~q I91q34920 lslG 3R,4228 Transcript DATE TIl+IIs STATION LOCATION PROGRAM • s August 22, 1996 11:00-11;35 PM (ET) WTHR-TV (NBC) Indianapolis News Channel 13 Tonight Jill Ditmire, co-anchor: Well, the case of "the little guy vs. big tobacco" has been going on in Marion County Court this week. We go live now to Eyewitness News Nightbeat reporter, David MacAnally, who has the latest on jury deliberations. David? David MacAnally, reporting: Jill, the jury deliberated for about nine hours today, and then just about a half hour ago, they sent a note to the judge that said, "we're tired, we want to go to bed." So he sent them home. In that note they said that there were still many issues to resolve, but that they were making progress. This is not just a case that will be of interest here in Indianapolis, the nation is watching this. When fifty-six year old Richard Rogers died of lung cancer, he had smoked all his life. His wi£e, Yvonne blamed cigarettes and tobacco companies for making a dangerous and highly addictive product that her husband just couldn't kick. But tobacco companies say Rogers knew the risk of smoking and could have quit anytime. They've won that same argument in case after case all over the country. Why has it been so tough to beat big tobacco? This Indianapolis lawyer handles wrongful-death cases, but is not on this one. He says juries agree with tobacco companies that people are responsible for their own actions, and if tobacco loses, he says, expect many appeals. Kevin Farrell (Indianapolis Attorney): When you're trying to take on an entire industry and think every product they make is unreasonably dangerous and exposes its users to an unreasonable risk or harm, you're taking on a billion- dollar industry. And they're not going to lay down and give you some money for nothing. ANeNiolmppWdbYVdab{faa2d'aPSaMUSaYetlybawdlalNmn/nxi~amlp@aruxrth. Myl~Fitkn,rsMaduv+w/Wk/,pqYfa~prWR&labidNn, frs wGeeeumr+opl9mw66 ewmrabdal el tAirnrtrls ym,etrcnmTYwwnNrafVXSeflKa

V10E0 MON[TORING SERVECES OF AMERfCA, INC • • • Paye: 2 MacAaally: in a rare verdict this summer, a jury found for the smoker. An Indiana University Law Professor says that could be the start of a trend. David orenclicher (Indianapolis University Professor); Now that we've got documents that show that they knew it was addictive, they lied about it, they tried to hide it- when you're sitting on a jury and trying to decide if you're going to show any sympathy for a drug company, and you look at these documents, it's very hard to do that. MacAnally: The jury continues deliberating at nine o'clock tomorrow. It's kind of interesting. This is almost following the pattern set by the first trial of this case a year and a half ago. That ended in a hung jury. They deliberated about as many hours on the first night, then went into the early morning hours until the judge finally sent them home. And then they continued deliberating about another six hours the second day before ending in a hung jury. We'll be back continuing following this story tomorrow. Ditmire: We'll see if history repeats itself, David. Thank you. # # # ** TOTHL PqGE.03 **