Thank you Perry 6 minutes now past 11. And good morning. This is midday on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary. I can glad you could join us and said his groundbreaking lawsuit against the big tobacco companies is now and it's 57th day of the case is generated Nationwide attention largely because of the huge number of previously secret documents the state and Blue Cross Blue Shield managed to pry loose from industry archives, but the case is also attracting lots of attention because of the states rather novel legal approach and because of the fact the state appears to have a good chance of winning this lawsuit today on. Midday. We're going to focus on the back of War's over the noon hour will be going live to the National Press Club for a speech by Stephen Goldstone the chairman and CEO of one of the nation's biggest. Tobacco companies the r.j. Reynolds company. He's actually head of RJR Nabisco the parent company of Reynolds. He's expected to discuss efforts to reach a national settlement new can National efforts to crack down on the tobacco companies and most likely the Minnesota lawsuit as well that's coming up at noon live from the national Press Club. Meanwhile this first hour of midday, we're going to focus on the trial itself Hamline law professor Joseph Daley has been closely following the trial and he joins us this morning from Chicago and we invite you to give us a call as well. If you've been wondering about some of the developments in the trial if you've had trouble keeping up with all of the developments in the trial. This is a great chance to get caught up and exactly what's been going on. We invite you to give us a call or Twin City area number is 227-6002 276 thousand and outside the Twin Cities. You can reach us toll-free. That number is 1 800 to +422-828-227-6000 or one 800-242-2828 were talking this hour about Minnesota's lawsuit against the big tobacco companies just where we stand in that lawsuit. Professor daily, thanks for joining us this morning. You're welcome. Well, first of all how far along are we and all the plaintiffs have presented their case? The defense is in the process of presenting its case what what's left to come? It's my understanding that the defense still has 15 or 16 Witnesses on its lift. That doesn't mean it will use all those Witnesses. But if they go forward with those Witnesses were still involved in at least three four, maybe five weeks of trial and can we expect the plaintiff's then to bring some witnesses back do they have that legal? Right. They rested their case provisionally a pending the outcome of this document argument the Supreme Court of the United States told the tobacco company just the other day that they had to release him. So Now they're examining those documents. And so they may be recalling some new Witnesses and some rebuttal witnesses to deal with these documents remind us again. What is the essential nature of the Minnesota lawsuit? This is not the typical suit wear a sick smoke or charges. The company's was making him or her sick, right? It's actually rather simple issue that's being addressed. But there are many other side issues that are being dealt with but the the basic simple issue is that the state and Blue Cross are contending that the tobacco companies use fraud on the public in the way it marketed the way it researched and wet manufactured its product and the tobacco companies are saying we did not defraud the public. How is it that the tobacco companies are alleged to have defrauded the public. Whether the allegations are there at the they knew that their product caused disease and they knew it for a long time and they misled the public the allegation is that the they knew that nicotine was addictive. They knew that they were marketing to children. They have known for a long time that their product is extremely dangerous and ultimately causes disease and theft and they were using many many kinds of additives in order to enhance the nicotine sexually to a dick the public and the other thing is that the state is saying that the tobacco companies buy a quote Gentlemen's Agreement. Decided not to compete with one another to find a safer cigarette then consequently involved in anti-competitive activities which violated which violates the antitrust laws on this fraud issue under Minnesota law. Is it necessary for somebody to actually be deceived in this case for the companies to be found liable for fraud that is to say if the tobacco companies could somehow prove that everybody knew cigarettes were bad for you. Would that be a sufficient defense or do they have to prove something else? If that would be a sufficient defensive the tobacco companies could prove that everybody knew that their product was bad for you essentially fraud you have to have intend to mislead by using false information in and that Open we have to lead to some kind of injury and then part of the intent concept is if the if the tobacco companies knew there were misleading or if they should have known they were let somebody that the argument that this has been documented long ago that the tobacco was no good for you and so on so forth that actually would be a legitimate defense in this case. She would be a legitimate defense but the plaintiff have shown or tried to show through their documents that the people really and truly did not know just how dangerous this product was. The tobacco companies. The state is alleging misled the public by pretending that it was still a scientific question open whether or not it actually did cause disease and also The plaintiffs the stay the same that there by the way, they Market it to children eat. The children could not possibly have known just how dangerous this product was no matter what historically has known and as a consequence by the time the children even have an opportunity when they became adults understand how dangerous they were already addicted to the product have the tobacco companies ever lost a case ZK some more documents have been put in public. They have attorneys who have tremendous skills and abilities and they have a an attorney general who has made a very great commitment to get these documents put into the public so I think in this particular case they've come and get it come against the a team of lawyers and a politician who they probably haven't faced before given the way the state law is written is there. Is there any chance that the state won't win this case? Oh, yeah. There's always in a trial two sides to a question and the tobacco companies have just begun to put their case in the last few weeks. And the reality, is that the The state legislature the the attorney's the public should not be counting on this money until then until the thing is all done and the jury comes back and even the appeals courts have said yes, but there's a possibility. Yes. That's the impression. I think that's left you in part by the coverage of the trial seems to indicate that's kind of a slam dunk that the state has proven its charge isn't just a formality but you would disagree with that at this point. I would say that I've never been involved in a trial. It was a slam dunk until the jury came back and said what the decision was it essentially the defense of the tobacco companies are they have they have several defense is one is that Historically the people of Minnesota, especially Minnesota knew that the backhoe is dangerous. That's why they put Professor Biermann. They noted historian from the University of Minnesota on the stand as their first witness and he testified in his opinion as an historian. Just looking at the public documents documents who were out, but anyone could look at his opinion was at the people news. And tobacco is dangerous. The other defensive the tobacco companies are using is the state taxation on Tobacco. And and in fact, the cost of smoking is the actual cost for the state of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield really can't be Properly analyzed in the way to stay one about it Tobacco companies are arguing is incorrect. And one of the things they're not allowed to argue. The judge has told him they're not permitted to argue. But they at least said in their emotions they would like to argue is that someone who smokes die sooner and therefore it cost less money and not argument but never the less of an argument that attacks the cost of smoking in the final argument that the tobacco companies. I'm sure we'll argue. They haven't really gone full force at this argument yet there in the trial, but it's been alluded to this is America. You have a right to pursue your own happiness. This is a legal product. It's a free country. And essentially everything that you do eventually get you we're all going to die. And so if you go skiing if you drink alcohol, if you do if you drive a car in the pursuit of your own happiness, it's legal, but sometimes those things have risk and I think that will be one of their main defenses when they really have more time and I will be a powerful defense family law professor Joseph Daley is our guest this hour he has been closely following Minnesota's lawsuit against the tobacco companies lawsuit continuing in Ramsey County Court District Court, and the over the noon hour today. We're going to hear from the head of the RJR Nabisco Stephen. Goldstone is speaking at the national Press Club at noon today talking about the the tobacco issue and we thought in preparation for that speech be great to catch up on where this Minnesota lawsuit Stan. If you have some specific questions trying to catch up on the trial of some things you've been puzzling about give us a call Twin City area number is 227-6002 276 thousand outside the Twin Cities. You can reach us toll-free at 1-800 to +422-828-227-6000 or one 800-242-2828. I get to some callers in just a second here, but I need that I should ask you why is it? That's why are the secret documents considered to be so important. The only people that really know what's in the secret documents at this point are the tobacco companies the judge the special master who is like the assistant judge you look at these documents and now the plaintiffs lawyers and I understand also the judge got upset with the tobacco lawyers the other day cuz apparently they forwarded the documents which were on a disc to the to the Congress. The committee who's looking at this and they were not supposed to do that until the tobacco until the plane of floors had a chance to look but it's actually that's who knows what's on these documents at this moment. Why are people what is a fight? So strongly all the way to the Supreme Court one can only guess at this moment, but some of the documents that have been coming in through the trial are quite devastating to the tobacco industry. They seem to indicate a series of lies to the public with the Tobacco Company in the late 50s telling the public and what they call the Frank statement about tobacco has become one of the key documents in the truck. That they really had an obligation to the public and that they would research this and as soon as they found out any information if tobacco was detrimental, they let people know and yet throughout the trial has been document showing the century lie to the public about that. They didn't tell the truth. They did some research and found out that it was dangerous and then immediately stopped research and then put it put a damper on release of any information. And so who knows what's in these documents these 39000 there is some allegations have been made that there may even be in these documents or showing that the Congress was lied to that oath were made and and perjury was committed. There are some allegations that maybe these documents show that the people are trying to defraud totally the public that the tobacco companies knew for a very long time that they were selling an extremely dangerous product. Some of the additive they put in a tobacco, even the documents they've discovered now show that they use Freon as an additive. They've used almost anything that will enhance the nicotine addiction. So who knows what's in these 39,000 documents, but we're going to find out is there any thought among legal Scholars that the tobacco companies have been arguing that the release of these documents violates their attorney-client privilege. Is there any concern in the legal community that by forcing the release of these documents that that will undermine the attorney-client privilege in other cases in other areas in other trials? That's the fight that the Tobacco Company brought all the way to the US Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. the attorney-client privilege exist to allow a safe haven for people to go to to be able to talk about even from their most secret things in society grants that privilege in some limited circumstances such as the priest penitent Minister Rabbi penitent the doctor-patient the attorney-client in the husband-wife that even though there may be relevant information that information cannot be obtained because it's privileged but what the special Master found markian Who was appointed by judge Fitzpatrick to be the special master in to take a look at these 39000 documents or at least categories of these 39,000 documents he found The tobacco companies in the lawyer for the debacle companies were actually involved in crime fraud and other words these documents indicated. There was an ongoing fraud and potentially an ongoing crime and that the attorney-client privilege does not apply when there is a the attorney him or herself is participating with the client in an ongoing crime or not going fraud and he specifically found that some of these documents indicate that so I don't think that legal Scholars will do this is some kind of momentous decision related to a side issue the attorney-client privilege. Obviously that will be one of the issues on a peel if it's a company loses a lot Professor Joseph Daley is joined us this morning. He's been following Minnesota's lawsuit against the tobacco companies and a very very close basis and it has been good enough to join us today to bring us up-to-date. Just what's been happening at the lawsuit and what we can expect over the next few weeks great chance to get your questions answered. If you've been puzzling about a development that you've been hearing about or perhaps you been unable to keep up with all the intricate details of the trial great chance to get some some basic questions answered today to 276 thousand Twin City area number to 276 thousand outside the Twin Cities one 800-242-2828 and get a reminder over the noon hour. It's off to the Press Club to hear from Stephen Goldstone, the chairman and CEO of RJR Nabisco the parent company of one of the nation's biggest. Tobacco manufacturers the r.j. Reynolds company John Deere first place. Thanks for taking my call. Okay, I've been I've been puzzling for some time about a particular piece of evidence that seems to be absent in this discussion and and the implication for another part of a logical argumentation. In the case of the evidence is something that a lot of us grew up with candy cigarettes candy cigars that carry prominent brand names that implies or suggest at least the complicity and cooperation of the tobacco companies. All this stuff was clearly targeted their young children influenced a lot of us. We grew up looking at the little gold little red Cole on the end of those toy cigarettes and I and II donut sugar and think of me isn't this cool related or argumentation question is if in fact this represents direct marketing are very intentional marketing to young children doesn't obviate any questions about people making informed choices or adults making informed choices of what impact was being done with the cultivation of markets of young basically legally incompetent people actually undeveloped children. Yes some John that some one of the things that have been stressed throughout this trial that even if historically the people of Minnesota knew that the tobacco is dangerous children certainly couldn't have known and when you mark it the product to cartoon characters like Barney, I forget the name of that the cartoon also, but it's back in the fifties the oboe the Joe Camel the products that clearly appeal to Children arguably then. The children could not possibly have known the danger of this product, even if the adults did and so John is correct. When you think back a lot of the seven and says already been put in the trial you got candy cigarettes on airplanes people they pass out these to pass out cigarettes and they give candy cigarettes. The kids didn't even give Hats and that sort of thing. So that's one of the very strong points of the plaintiffs case. Now would it matter that the state itself apparently was giving cigarettes to the kids at one point in some of these Correctional Facilities with that offset that testimony in any way or are those two separate deals all together cleaner shark you that it's two separate realities, but I think that the any jury after all the jury is a group of peers in there people that the there 12 people in the street or ordinary regular human beings. I think that'll make a big difference actually Gerard your question place for taking my call. One thing I'm concerned about is what about the warning labels on the cigarettes? How could anybody claim the you know, it's pretty clear, you know. The surgeon general's warning the plaintiffs have answered those warnings by saying the public really didn't understand and they showed during the trial. They show the warnings. For example, cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide is one of the warnings and I don't know unless you're a scientist if you understand the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. It says that cigarette smoking can cause emphysema. What does emphysema mean really it was testimony even that one of the tobacco expert one of the people that was called who works for the Tobacco Company really didn't understand what emphysema love And so are you agree the those warnings the steak and thins we're not really understood by the people in the totality in a very clear man, or just how dangerous cigarette smoking is Bob your question place. One thing that concerned me was when I was hearing attorney general. I think of Massachusetts safe what they had accomplished with their agreement with something no legislature court or executive branch and that was a concern of mine because that's what we do government United States, and it's kind of a bad president. Is this a proper thing for the courts to be deciding? I guess it's the essence of Bob's question. But I think it's a very good question. We want to resolve some of our most important and most difficult conflicts in the court system or are they best resolved in the legislative branch of government? I teach trial skills at Hamline University law school, but I also teach a course called arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. Then I recognize that there are a variety of ways to resolve conflict and to deal with policy questions and the courts often are not necessarily the best ways to do you think it's a good question and I think it's a it's a question that Congress is dealing with it and will continue to deal with the planets. I think the state would probably answer. until this case No one not even Congress has been able to pry from the tobacco companies. By legal means these hidden documents and this is the very first time for tremendous effort by the state's lawyers in the lawyers who are working on behalf of the state to get these documents. And so I think they would probably argue at least for some situations. The court is necessary Eleanor Hamline University law professor. Joseph Daley has joined us this hour. He's been keeping close tabs on the Minnesota lawsuit against the tobacco companies that trial continues and today we thought would be a good day to catch up on exactly what's been going on at the trial what's left to come and then over the noon hour. We will hear from one of the key individuals involved in this drama Stephen Goldstone. Who's the chairman CEO of RJR Nabisco. He is speaking today at the national Press Club about the Tobacco Wars and we'll have live coverage from the You'd like to join our conversation this our give us a call to 276 thousand in the Twin Cities to 276 thousand outside the Twin Cities one 800-242-2828 great opportunity to get some of your questions answered about the trial will get back to us some more colors in just a moment. I'm learn Advanced and lawmakers are working feverishly at the Capitol in hopes of finishing up. The session before Easter will track their last-minute victories on the next all things considered as well as the remaining sticking Points Plus testimony resumes in the states. Tobacco trial those stories and the rest of the day's news on the next All Things Considered weekdays at 3 on Minnesota Public Radio k n o w FM 91.1 in the Twin Cities. Programming an NPR is supported by the Guthrie Theater Performing Shakespeare's romantic comedy Much Ado About Nothing April 10th through May 17th tickets available 37722 to for cloudy skies are forecast for most of the stated a good chance for some more rain across southern Minnesota and along the western border as well as low 40s to the low 50s should be partly cloudy then tomorrow Twin City forecast some light rain this afternoon with a high near 50 partly cloudy tomorrow or the high in the mid-fifties right now mid-forties in the Twin Cities weather cloudy sky and 44 degrees more callers are on their line with questions for Hamlin law professor Joseph Daley about the ongoing Minnesota lawsuit against the tobacco companies the trial continuing in st. Paul Mary your question, please The first of which I think a previous caller asked about marketing two young people because I'm in the healthcare profession in Primary Health Care, and we know that if you start smoking before the age of 18, it is much more difficult to stop smoking after the age of 18 then if you started after the age of 18, and I know your address that issue a little bit, but my second question is an introduction one of the comments that was made was that well smokers die earlier so that they're not as much a cost of the state that may be true. But there's we see in Primary Health Care a lot of secondary effects on children and other people in the home, we see a lot more ear infections need for ear tubes surgery to the sinuses to the adenoids of asthma development of emphysema chronic sinusitis. Just Titus we just see a lot of it one of the first questions I asked when somebody comes in with no respiratory infection is either smokers in the home and do you smoke because it is such a significant effect and I can't believe that that there's less of a cost of someone dying earlier from smoking-related causes than the cost and the effect on not only the smoker but the other people in The Smokers lives. comments on the app there has been testimony throughout the trial on the two questions that you've raised one getting children under 18 essentially addicted not essentially addicted to this product because they're statistics that were introduced at the trial by the plaintiff side that they come from the hidden documents for the formerly hidden documents. Probably the back of companies that unless someone starts it if someone doesn't start smoking by the time the 21 the likelihood of them actually smoking is very low. So there's information that the tobacco companies were really working very hard to get people 14 15 16 committed to their product even down to the age of 5, and I was there evidence or has evidence been presented that they wanted him to start smoking or if they were going to smoke to smoke their brand they wanted to do both they want them to start smoking and they wanted to get them quote loyal to their brand and it comes from the tobacco documents the other question that Mary raised learning that the passive health effects of the path of smoke two children, the ear infections otitis media inner ear infections of children. Info on it also has been put in as evidence in the trial and I think the cost of smoking was placed in through the University of Minnesota public health expert it became pretty clear that it isn't just the early death that they're talking about. But it's also the tremendous cost to the system to deal with the effects of passive smoke on children. Is there a challenge to the way the state has calculated its presumed cost of these they will definitely tell that they've changed it on cross-examination dramatically and they will be putting in experts to a tacit of vigorously they will be saying that the it's actually the statistical design of the cost of smoking that was used in Minnesota is faulty that you just simply cannot. Come up with the numbers to properly inform a jury. Just how much money smoking has cost the state of Minnesota and the tobacco company, but I think it's pretty clear that even if there are some problems with the statistical model from what I seen. It's really clear that the tobacco and the use of tobacco has cough the state and Blue Cross a tremendous amount of money. So they'll be arguing just to just probably how much money but I think it's going to be hard for them to argue its cost of nothing you mentioned earlier and in terms of the cost that they tobacco companies wanted to use an argument that smokers actually die sooner and so you could make the case that they cost the state less the judge wouldn't allow that to that argument. Why not? I mean if they want to make that argument why wouldn't the judge permit there? the judge told the tobacco companies he thought he was rescuing them that the mystery sea and Roberta Wall Brandon the other the other lawyers represent in the state of Minnesota with just make mincemeat of them if they use that kind of argument and so the judge essentially told at the back of companies. He probably was rescuing them, but it seems to me as a trial lawyer and someone to teach his trial law if the tobacco companies want to use that argument is relevant. They take the risk, of course of what kind of effect that might have on the jury yet. It would be like saying the driver ran over your child. And so therefore the child died and so it's actually saved you money cuz you have to pay for college education. So you can imagine what even a semi-skilled trial lawyer would do with that arguments not to mention the incredible skills that this is Theresa may as well Brandon the other lawyer for the state. Have you heard you on the all things considered a couple of weeks ago praising Mistress of Reese's work? What about the attorneys representing the tobacco companies are they doing a good job or are they being outmatched by the plaintiff attorneys weed a one of the reasons that I started going over there as much as possible to watch this is because I teach trial skills and Hamline University law school, and I thought this is an opportunity to see really really good lawyers and it's been true. I have watched from the plane of side. I believe at least to try real geniuses. I think this is seriously amiss wall brand who are the she is the Mainstay of getting these documents are absolutely for LG to me is watching the two of them is like watching a Beethoven. It's like watching Michael Jordan. They're just they're just to Mendes. The tobacco lawyers are very good. Very very good. Some are better than others some I haven't even got enough to need to hear from there are over 25. Tobacco lawyers in that courtroom. A few of them. We're not very good. They were not very good at cross-examination. Then it really quite surprised me. So I'd say the plaintiff lawyers. Lawyers for represent in the state of Minnesota are absolutely genius and what they're doing and the tobacco lawyers are very good. My coming is in regards to the drawing of the connection of the lawsuit on the part of the State against the tobacco companies versus the idea that the people who really encouraged damage making the assumption that indeed the tobacco companies have done the things that the other accused of doing even assuming they've lied to the public and that they've caused more people to become addicted to tobacco and so forth. The people are really the ones that have incurred the damage and yet the state isn't one suing for the damages that you've talked to her recently about the difficulty in statistically determining and what the actual costs are and I do believe those costs have to be mitigated by the fact that People who do smoke long-term and died earlier. I do save the state some money or do save the state some money and then maybe not offsetting completely those costs that are incurred by the state but partially offsetting them in addition to that the state also collects tax money on every package and carton of cigarettes sold and my my comment really the point of it is if if the state feels that that the smoking incurs that much cost of them. However, they determine the number wouldn't a more appropriate way of regaining that car speed increase the tax on cigarettes are they have that control right now and they already tax on cigarettes if they think tank for an extra billion dollars a year divided that out by the the cigarettes sold in at the same time also have a demand affect on cigarettes by increasing the cost. One of the one of the reasons that makes this case different from the other tobacco cases that the plaintiff have lost is that this case is the case premised on violation of state laws regarding fraud that the state of Minnesota has been defrauded. The people of Minnesota has been defrauded by the way. Tobacco companies have marketed their product research their product manufactured their product and Blue Cross and the state have had to expend quite a bit of money because of that violation of the law when a single person has gone against the tobacco companies sang. I got emphysema or I got cancer from smoking. The defense of foreseeability the defense of comparative negligence or contributory negligence you or negligent you knew that it was the cause of your own demise has been pretty powerful but it's a different premise the lawsuit that's being brought by the state of Minnesota and Blue Cross. And so I think it may be quite a difference in Scott in relationship to your question about charging more money. I think one of the results of this trial and the release of all these documents is this This case will make tobacco a much more highly regulated industry. I think the other day when the US Supreme Court hold a tobacco company. Essentially turn those documents over another words were not going to stop judge Fitzgerald to order or Fitzpatrick or sorry. I think that day will be marked in the tobacco industry as a day in which the tobacco industry will become an extremely highly regulated industry. They will not be able to do the kinds of things that they've done throughout their History Bill your question, please Professor. I'm raising the question is how much the threat of civil litigation by the tobacco companies have compromised the freedom of the American Press. I have been very concerned because on the London Daily Telegraph in the middle of March. They got a half-page spread on the trial in Minnesota and I read this in Madera and what I was really really caught my eye was they were signing documents. In the thirty-nine Thousand documents by number and one that gave the example of was one research that was done in 1970 by a Gallagher tobacco company, which was merged into the British company that's business now and they did some research in which if they said beyond A Reasonable Doubt and that's a quote that they prove a scientific link between lung cancer and cigarettes usage and there was a half page it was in a respectable for a newspaper and since no papers pick that up in this country. No papers quoted it. And so my question is is just how much our news media is threatened by potential litigation by the tobacco companies for publish something. They don't want published. Is that an issue in the in the trial at all Professor? It's not an issue at all. These plaintiffs lawyers being fearful of the Tobacco Company. In fact, when will germs of it whether or not people were given good information about what was the the dangers of smoking is that come up that the the media wasn't caught somehow with the tobacco industry to cover this information up. Oh, definitely. That's one of the issues. That's one of the primary issues that the Tobacco Company constantly obfuscated. Another words. Just tried to cut it to make make it foggy. Just exactly what the state of scientific information was. And any other Tobacco Company New clearly and the color is absolutely correct that the tobacco industry had for a long time in the seventies clear scientific tific information. And this trial has proved it that tobacco causes cancer causes that they knew it and they never told the public and by the way, they haven't gotten it from the thirty-nine thousand. Documents that were just released they got it from the 30 million documents that they were able to discover because of this trial so we still wait to see what's in those 39 information. That's even more devastating. That's good. At least one more call Iran Bjorn some have managed to quit smoking and I did isn't that proof that we know about the dangers of smoking smarter than everybody and I'm wondering about the results from other countries as I just in Scandinavia where it's been shown that smoking is racing but advertising it's not legal there. In terms of quitting smoking the very first witness at the state of Minnesota put on the stand. Dr. Richard heard from the Mayo Clinic and he runs the addiction program at the Mayo Clinic. He talked about that. There are some people who can quit smoking even though they're addictive on their own but the fact is that the majority of people have it almost impossible time quitting smoking on their own or even when they get help through a clinic like his he testified that he once was a 3 pack a day smoker and it was absolutely for him the hardest thing he'd ever done in his entire life. So essentially his testimony was the tobacco companies know it's addictive and they try to add it to you and even though some people can quit the majority can't even testified there was evidence that Tobacco is more addictive than things like heroin and cocaine. It's it's incredibly addictive in terms of advertising one of the arguments for coming to a legislative resolution of of the situation rather than a legal resolution, which one of the previous cars asked about that at least then you can try to get the tobacco company to give up with ever First Amendment rights. They might have regarding advertising Stephen Goldstone the RJR Nabisco chairman speaking at the Press Club. Today. We're going to have live coverage at noon. He is expected to emphasize that the that his company. Anyway adamantly opposed is the legislation moving through Congress the argument being that if it's actually passes his company will go bankrupt if in fact of the tobacco companies go bankrupt In Minnesota wins its case will we in fact end up with any money? You know the Striking I don't know the answer to that question. That's a very good question. I'm not an expert in bankruptcy law, but I have no expertise in bankruptcy. And that's a very good question. I don't know the answer to that question any likelihood certainly if they had Tobacco Company Lou the tobacco companies rather lose. I assume they're going to appeal correct. I think there's no question. There are so many side issues involved here. The discovery issues the attorney-client privilege the judges neutrality the good lawyers contingency fees and so on. I mean, there are so many side issues to the main issue that the the probably be appealing this case for years so I could be a long time before it's finally resolved do it, but they have you think a reasonable argument on appeal or kind of grasping at straws. What I seen and I watch quite a bit of the trial the state of Minnesota's winning. We have yet to determine from the tobacco companies the full extent of their defense. So it's very hard for me to tell you if though it is still have if they lose. First of all, will they lose its hard for me to say that and if they do they have appealable issue fit. It is hard to predict the state wants 1.7 billion dollars. Is that correct? Correct? And the total amount could be who knows how high the total amount could be if they win or the politicians I would advise him not to count your chickens before they hatch. out-of-court settlement likely I think that with the release of these documents goes to the full light of public scrutiny. I think I'm out of court settlement is likely. Yes. If it does go to the jury the case does go to the jury is a unanimous verdict required. No, it's not fixed your drawers and and the five of them could make a decision in this case the parties agree that they would have 12 years, but it doesn't have to be unanimous. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it great information. Thank you Hamline University law professor Joseph Daley who has been following the tobacco trial very closely joining us today from Chicago to bring us up-to-date on just what's been going on at the trial and appreciate the information. Thanks to all of you who've been listening through the hours specially those of you who called in or try to call in with your questions and comments. Now our coverage of this issue was going to continue over the new now or we're off to the National Press Club over the noon hour to hear from the chairman and CEO of RJR Nabisco. Stephen Goldstone who's speaking at the Press Club. Tobacco stocks are up sharply today as Wall Street waits for that address. Animation undertale public radio invite you to a special evening with national public radio religion correspondent. Lynn Neary has won numerous awards for her work as a host newscaster and reporter with NPR join Lynn Neary Wednesday evening, April 15th for exploring the landscape of religious America beginning at 7 at the Macalester College Chapel in St. Paul tickets for the lecture are free and available at Mississippi Market in St. Paul and the Linden Hills Co-Op in Minneapolis 5 minutes now before 12