Widdick v. Brown & Williamson
"The Tobacco Conspiracy Trial"
Secret Tobacco Documents Unveiled
(May 26) As lung expert Dr. Allan Feingold returned to the stand for his third day of testimony, jurors received their first look at confidential documents within the tobacco industry that allegedly reveal that Big Tobacco was concealing the dangers of smoking from the public since at least the 1960s.
Dr. Feingold reviewed the tobacco documents and tried to show the court that the industry knew more about smoking's hazards than it publicly acknowledged. Brown & Williamson attorneys argued unsuccessfully against the admissibility of the documents, claiming that they fell under the protection of attorney-client privilege. As plaintiff attorney Norwood Wilner attempted to introduce some of the documents, Brown & Williamson further argued about the their relevance to the case brought by the late Roland Maddox's family. These defense objections led to several lengthy confidential sidebar discussions between the judge and the attorneys.
Testimony today focused on the time the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) was renamed the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) in 1964. On the eve of the Surgeon General's first report in 1964, tobacco industry executives gathered, allegedly to plan a strategy to respond to the report. Presenting a united front, Big Tobacco created a Committee of Counsel, comprised of the general counsels of each of the major tobacco companies. (The plaintiffs allege that the formation of this committee was part of the industry-wide conspiracy to hide smoking's dangers from the public.)
Wilner produced an industry document from the 1960s that suggested that all matters of smoking and health would go to the Committee of Counsel. Dr. Feingold testified that health matters should be decided by scientists and doctors who protect public health interests, not by attorneys protecting the interests of a company. (The plaintiffs claim that the funneling of information through the Committee of Counsel was a way of hiding it through attorney-client privilege.)
Dr. Feingold also reviewed several internal industry documents that reveal an industry position that was inconsistent with the notion that the CTR was an objective entity. Allegedly, the papers indicate that the CTR had a key role in deciding who was funded for research and recommended that the CTR fund research into cancer itself rather than into studies about the link between cancer and smoking. Dr. Feingold will return to the stand on Wednesday morning to continue his testimony.
top of page
| 
