The second Vioxx trial: Day 1
“Merck, which has a different trial team here than it did in Texas, will not publicly discuss its strategy in this case. But Merck appears to have carefully examined the Texas case in an effort to avoid making the same mistakes that doomed its trial team down there.
In the Texas case, two lawyers representing Merck split time during the opening arguments, making it difficult for jurors to connect with either. In contrast, Diane Sullivan, a lawyer at Dechert, was the only lawyer to speak for Merck on Wednesday.
Also, Ms. Sullivan spoke without notes, unlike Merck’s Texas lawyers, who read from a lectern and appeared stiff and formal. Ms. Sullivan also repeatedly asked jurors to use their ‘common sense’ . . .
. . . Meanwhile, Christopher Seeger, the lead lawyer for Mr. Humeston, was far less smooth than Mr. Lanier had been.
Mr. Seeger read his opening argument from behind a lectern and sometimes appeared to bog down in the complex scientific details about the way that Vioxx affects the cardiovascular system.”
Related posts:
- Vioxx: The lottery may be running dry
- Sore loser
- Tort reform in Oklahoma
- A jury of "uneducated casino workers" beat the hell out of Merck
- Tort reform in Texas: Working better than expected
- Lawyers win again, patients lose
- Jury decision making
{ 1 comment }
Uh-OH. The only thing that may save the plaintiff now is if he suffers a cardiac arrest in the courtroom during the trial. His attorney may actually ask him to do it, to save their case…Sounds likes theres more money for the sharks to make down in New Orleans these days…maybe they can toss a few people into the polluted water.
Comments on this entry are closed.