STATE OF MINNESOTA AND BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA,
PLAINTIFFS,

V. 

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., ET. AL., 
DEFENDANTS.


TOPIC:          TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
        TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET-NUMBER:  C1-94-8565
VENUE:          Minnesota District Court, Second Judicial District, Ramsey
County.

YEAR:           February 19, 1998
        A.M. Session

JUDGE:          Hon. Judge Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge

THE CLERK: All rise. Ramsey County District Court is now in session, the
Honorable Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick now presiding.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
    THE CLERK: Please be seated.
    THE COURT: Good morning.
        (Collective "Good morning.")
    THE COURT: The record should show that Deposition Exhibit 139, which
was marked as Trial Exhibit 2548, was introduced without objection, and
that is received.
    Counsel.
    MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor. We would start this morning by
calling for cross-examination pursuant to Rule 611(c) Robert K. Heimann,
who is a former CEO and president of American Tobacco. It will be by video
deposition, Your Honor.
    MR. BERNICK: Your Honor, the record should reflect that this deposition
was taken in December 1986.
    MR. CIRESI: That's correct. It was taken in another action, Your Honor,
where the defendants were represented and had an opportunity to examine Mr.
Heimann.
    MR. CORRIGAN: Your Honor, that's not quite accurate. There was no
counsel for B.A.T Industries invited to attend, though present. Your Honor
has issued an order on the matter.
    THE COURT: That matter has been ruled on. Let's proceed.
        (Videotape played.)
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, the Exhibit 1 which will be referred to has
been entered into trial here as Exhibit 14145, the Frank Statement.
        (Videotape continued to be played.)
    MR. CIRESI: The Surgeon General's report, Your Honor, is GK00003.
That's already been admitted.
        (Videotape continued to be played.)
    MR. CIRESI: Plaintiffs call James Glenn, the CEO and chairman of CTR
for cross-examination pursuant to Rule 611(c).
    MR. BERNICK: Your Honor, could we have a brief side bar.
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I want to take just two minutes to bring some
documents up, if I could. Could I have your permission to --
    THE COURT: Okay.
    MR. WEBER: Thank you.
    THE CLERK: Sir, will you please stand and raise your right hand.
    MR. CIRESI: I think we're still waiting for Mr. Weber, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Why don't you be seated for a moment.
    Ready?
    MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate it.
    THE COURT: All right. Swear him in.
        (Witness sworn.)
    THE CLERK: Please state your name.
    THE WITNESS: James F. Glenn.
    THE CLERK: You may be seated.
    *2 JAMES F. GLENN called as a witness, being first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Good morning, sir.
    A. Good morning, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. You and I have never met before.
    A. No.
    Q. You live in Winchester, Kentucky; is that correct?
    A. Well not quite. I live halfway between Lexington and Winchester.
    Q. All right. What's the name of the town, sir, if there is a town?
    A. There is no town.
    Q. Just live on a farm.
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. And you're a graduate of the University of Rochester with
a B.A. in general science; is that correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And you received your M.D. degree from Duke University in 1952?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And from 1958 to 1959 you were an instructor at Duke?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And from 1959 to 1961 you were an assistant professor of urology at
Yale?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And you then moved to Bowman Gray School of Medicine from 1961 to
1963?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you were an associate professor of urology there?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Where is Bowman Gray, sir?
    A. In Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
    Q. Okay. That's the home of RJR?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And from 1963 to 1980 you went back to Duke and you were a professor
of urology there?
    A. I was professor and chairman of the department.
    Q. And 1980 to 1983 you moved to Emory, in Atlanta, Georgia; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And you were a professor of surgery at Emory?
    A. And Dean of the medical school.
    Q. Okay. And in 1983 you moved again to Mount Sinai Hospital; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And that's in New York.
    A. In New York.
    Q. And you were president of Mount Sinai Hospital and the medical
school there?
    A. I was president of the Mount Sinai Medical Center, president of the
Mount Sinai Medical School and president of Mount Sinai Hospital.
    Q. And you left there in 1987; is that correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You had a disagreement with the board of directors at that time?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. There had been some unauthorized surgery that took place at Mount
Sinai?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And Mount Sinai was investigated by the Department of Health; is
that correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you resigned at that time; correct, sir?
    A. I took retirement at that time.
    Q. Took retirement.
    The retirement was connected with the investigation by the Department
of Health; was it not, sir?
    A. No, sir. The retirement was predicated on the fact that I disagreed
with our board of trustees. Our surgeons had done a heart transplant
without knowing that they needed the specific permission of the
Commissioner of Health to do this. I defended the doctors' position. Our
board of trustees in general felt that they had financial liability, and
for that reason they were prepared to accept my resignation.
    Q. And you did resign at that time, at the same time of this incident;
is that correct?
    A. At the same time as what?
    Q. The incident.
    A. Well some months later. There was considerable exchange of ideas
about this.
    *3 Q. I'm sure there were.
    A. I felt the physicians had acted in a very responsible and ethical
matter. As a matter of fact, the patient did beautifully.
    Q. And in fact the hospital was fined in the thousands of dollars;
correct?
    A. Eight thousand dollars.
    Q. By the State Department of Health, which conducted an investigation;
correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And the hospital was not authorized to conduct this type of surgery
at that time; correct?
    A. At that time. But this precipitated full approval of the heart
transplant program, subsequently the liver transplant program.
    Q. After you left, sir; correct?
    A. Coincident with my departure.
    Q. Which means after you left; correct?
    A. No. "Coincident" means at the same time.
    Q. Were they approved after you left? "Yes" or "no," doctor.
    A. I can't remember the exact timing, but the -- the heart transplant
precipitated the negotiations to approve all of the Mount Sinai programs.
We were approved for kidney transplants at the time.
    Q. That's not what I asked you, sir.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor. That's the third time he's
interrupted the witness now. If he could complete his answer.
    THE COURT: Counsel, just make your objection.
    MR. WEBER: He's interrupting the witness.
    THE COURT: All right. Allow the witness to answer.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Sir, my question is simple: After you left and after the
investigation by the Department of Health, it was then that Mount Sinai got
authorization; correct? "Yes" or "no."
    A. The authorization was subsequent to my departure.
    Q. Thank you.
    A. The negotiations preceded my departure.
    MR. CIRESI: Move to strike the non-responsive portion.
    THE COURT: I'll let it stand.
    Q. Now sir, in 1987, then, when you left Mount Sinai Hospital, you went
to work for The Council for Tobacco Research; correct?
    A. That's not exactly correct. I -- I was invited to join the
Scientific Advisory Board of The Council for Tobacco Research before
leaving Mount Sinai, and I did so.
    Q. Well when you left Mount Sinai, did you join The Council for Tobacco
Research?
    A. I joined The Council for Tobacco Research before I left Mount Sinai.
    Q. Okay. And that was in July of 1987?
    A. No, sir, it was in April of 1987.
    Q. Okay. And in July you became the assistant scientific director of
the CTR?
    A. I did.
    Q. And at that time the chairman of the CTR was a gentleman by the name
of Hobbs?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And he was the former president of RJR, Reynolds; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. And did you become the scientific director of CTR in 1988?
    A. I did.
    Q. And did you become the CEO and chairman and president of CTR in
1991?
    A. Essentially. I became the chairman and CEO in 1991, and I assumed
the title of president in 1993.
    Q. And you report to the board of directors of the CTR; is that
correct?
    A. I am the chairman of the board of directors of CTR.
    Q. And do you report to the board?
    *4 A. Certainly.
    Q. And the board consists of two representatives from Philip Morris?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Two from RJR?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Two from Lorillard?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Two from Brown & Williamson; correct?
    A. Yes. Yes, sir.
    Q. And essentially 100 percent of the funding of the CTR is derived
from those four companies in relationship to their share of the market;
correct?
    A. I'm proud to say that that's true.
    Q. And the board has the power to hire or fire people; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you serve at the pleasure of the board; correct?
    A. I suppose. That issue hasn't been discussed.
    Q. Well I'm not asking if it's been discussed. I don't mean to imply
anything by that, sir, I'm only asking you what the organizational
structure is. Do you understand that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. And so you do serve at the pleasure of the board of directors;
do you not?
    A. They are, I would assume, my employers, yes.
    Q. And they determine your income?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And presently you're paid 350,000 dollars for your work --
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. -- on an annual basis for the CTR; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now when you joined the CTR, you had an opportunity to investigate
its history; correct, sir?
    A. I -- I didn't understand the question, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. When you joined the CTR, you had an opportunity to investigate the
history of that organization.
    A. When I joined the Scientific Advisory Board, I did that, yes.
    Q. Okay. And you have a reasonable overview of that history; do you
not, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you've read the annual reports of the CTR; correct?
    A. Not word for word, but I am familiar with the annual reports.
    Q. And you reviewed much correspondence in the archives or files of the
CTR; correct?
    A. Some of it, yes.
    Q. And you've had conversations with members who are on the staff of
the CTR who have been there for a long period of time; correct?
    A. I've had some conversations with the staff, yes.
    Q. Now sir, during the course of your career, you have conducted
yourself no research regarding smoking and health; have you?
    A. Not regarding smoking and health. I've sponsored research into the
beneficial function of nicotine on the smooth muscle of the urinary tract
under a grant from the American Medical Association Educational Research
Fund.
    Q. Well that was about, what, 25, 30 years ago?
    A. Maybe a little longer. Thirty.
    Q. That was back at Duke; --
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- correct?
    And you didn't do the hands-on work on that. That was done in the
laboratory that you were in charge of; correct, sir?
    A. It's my laboratory, yes.
    Q. Okay. So other than that, you yourself have conducted no research on
smoking and health during the entire course of your career; correct?
    A. I've done no direct research regarding smoking and health, but I've
dealt extensively with cancers that are said to be associated with smoking,
so I can't say that I've been remote from the problem.
    *5 Q. That's not what I asked you, doctor. I simply asked you whether
you yourself have conducted any research, direct research on smoking and
health.
    A. Well what is --
    Q. Let me --
    A. -- "direct research," Mr. Ciresi?
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, can I object now to counsel's commentary and his
argument with the witness? And the question's asked and answered.
    THE COURT: Well the question's been asked. You may answer the question.
    A. I have not done direct smoking research.
    Q. Thank you, sir.
        (Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Doctor, I believe up there -- if not we'll get them for you -- there
should be two books, we'll hand them up to you, that have some exhibits.
    MR. CIRESI: May I approach, Your Honor?
        (Documents handed to the witness.)
    A. Thank you.
    Q. You're welcome.
    Now doctor, during the course of my examination I'll be referring to
certain documents, and they'll be in either volume one or two. And if you
look on the side you'll see that it will say either volume two or volume
one.
    A. Volume one, volume two.
    Q. Right. Okay, good.
    Now have you had an opportunity to look at some of the documents which
we gave notice that we would be using with you?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And some of those documents you had seen before; correct, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. When you had your deposition taken, you had reviewed some of those
documents; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now doctor, can you direct your attention, please --
    And I'd like to discuss with you right now the formation of The Council
for Tobacco Research. All right? Understand where we're going?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And it was formerly known as the Tobacco Industry Research
Committee; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. That's the name it had when it was formed in 1954; correct?
    A. As I understand it.
    Q. Okay. And you understand that based on your investigation of -- into
the history of the organization; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Can you direct your attention, please, to Exhibit 18905, which
would be in volume two of the volumes in front of you.
    A. I have it.
    Q. All right. This is one of the documents you've reviewed; correct,
sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. This is a document by Bert C. Goss, G-o-s-s, dated December
15th, 1953, and he was with Hill & Knowlton.
    MR. CIRESI: And we would offer that document, Your Honor, Exhibit
18905.
    MR. WEBER: I'd object to it on the basis of no foundation to be
established with this witness, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: You'll have to lay foundation.
    MR. CIRESI: The document was produced out of the files of the
University of Wisconsin. It's an ancient document. It's been authenticated.
That information has been provided to the defendants. It's admissible, Your
Honor, we suggest, under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as an admission of agents, it's
admissible under 801(d)(2)(B) as adoptive admissions, and it's admissible
as an ancient document under Rule 803(16).
    *6 MR. WEBER: With respect to those statements, Your Honor, we don't
even get to those rules until they've laid the foundation as to what it is.
I understand Mr. Ciresi says this came from the University of Wisconsin. I
assume he's going to say it came from a file at the University of
Wisconsin, but that still doesn't lay the foundation through this witness,
so I object.
    THE COURT: Can you tell us what it is?
    MR. CIRESI: Pardon me, Your Honor?
    THE COURT: Can -- can you tell us what it is?
    MR. CIRESI: It is a document from Hill & Knowlton, an authenticated
document, the authentication of which has been provided to the defendant.
That is the authentication under Rule 803(16).
    THE COURT: All right, the court will receive 18905.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, I would also put into the record Trial Exhibit
18893, which is the authentication received from the State Historical
Society of Wisconsin, and which has been provided to the defendants.
    MR. WEBER: Excuse me. What's the number on that, Mr. Ciresi?
    MR. CIRESI: 18893.
    MR. WEBER: Are you just attaching that to the record, or are you moving
its admission?
    MR. CIRESI: I'm moving its admission.
    MR. WEBER: Okay, I would -- I would object to 18893, Your Honor. The
objection is hearsay. It's a letter, as I understand Mr. Ciresi's
description, it's a letter from someone who's not testifying and who's not
affiliated with any of the parties hereto. So I object, clear hearsay.
    THE COURT: I believe it's a certificate of authentication.
    MR. CIRESI: That is correct, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Okay. Court will receive 18893.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now sir, you understand that Hill & Knowlton was hired back in 1953
by many of the defendants in this case in order to help form the TIRC; do
you not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you heard Mr. Heimann testify here this morning; did you not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you heard him say that Mr. Hahn, the former president of
American Tobacco, gave birth to the TIRC; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And it was Mr. Hahn who contacted Hill & Knowlton; correct, sir?
    A. I -- I didn't appreciate that from the testimony I heard, but I -- I
would assume it might be correct.
    Q. Yes. And based on your review of the history of the TIRC, you have
found that to be correct; have you not?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, asked --
    A. I don't know.
    MR. WEBER: Let me object. Asked and answered.
    THE COURT: It's been asked and answered.
    Q. Can you direct your attention, please, to Exhibit 18905. And
specifically you see at the top the date December 15th, 1953; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now based on your knowledge of the history of this organization,
doctor, you know at this time in history that there had been studies
published in the medical literature with respect to the relationship of
smoking to lung cancer; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You knew that there was great alarm in the industry concerning these
documents; correct?
    A. I don't know that.
    *7 Q. Did you learn that from your review of the documents, that they
had a concern -- and by "they" I mean the industry -- about the publication
of these documents?
    A. I accept the word "concern." The concern was over a matter of public
health. We were -- in 1953 we were just beginning to learn the implications
of smoking. I would say in 1953 a majority of physicians were smokers. We
were just beginning to learn the -- the risk factors that were involved
with smoking.
    Q. Do you know, sir, what the companies themselves knew in late 1953
about the health risks of smoking?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Have you looked at their own internal documents to see what they
knew?
    A. Only those documents that have been provided, but I -- I can't say
that I knew what the companies knew in 1953, which was a long time ago.
    Q. But you know based on your review of the documents what some of
those companies knew; don't you?
    A. I don't think the companies knew anything more than the scientific
community knew, and we were just beginning to evolve the information that
we now have available to us today.
    Q. All right. Well we'll explore those issues as we go through your
testimony. All right?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. If you can direct your attention, then, to the first page of
Exhibit 18905. Do you see there, first of all, there's a Roman numeral I,
"Participants?"
    A. Yes.
    Q. And if you go to the third paragraph where it's reported as follows,
"The group was called together by Mr. Paul Hahn, president of The American
Tobacco Company. The chief executive officers of all the leading companies
- R. J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Benson & Hedges, U.S. Tobacco Company,
Brown & Williamson - have agreed to go along with a public relations
program on the health issue." Do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And you've read this document before, sir.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you do know that at the outset of the formation of the TIRC, now
known as the CTR, that one of its functions was to engage in public
relations; correct?
    MR. WEBER: Let me object to that, Your Honor, there's no foundation
apart from this document which has been introduced. I think he needs to lay
foundation with the witness.
    THE COURT: No. You may answer it if you know.
    THE WITNESS: I -- I should answer it, Your Honor?
    THE COURT: If you know the answer.
    A. Well I don't know the answer.
    Q. You didn't --
    A. I know from what I've read here that a public relations function was
a charge to the -- this TIRC that was being formed.
    Q. All right. So you --
    A. I think that's in the nature of public information presenting a
factual and objective picture to the public.
    This was an era when, Mr. Ciresi, when we didn't know all of the things
we know today.
    Q. Okay. I think you said a factual and accurate picture; is that what
you said?
    A. Yes. Yes.
    Q. And that was a public relations function of the TIRC; isn't that
what you said?
    A. That's what I said.
    *8 Q. Okay. So you would expect that the TIRC at that time would give
accurate and factual information based on the knowledge it and the industry
had; correct?
    A. It has done that consistently, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. That's not what I asked you, sir. You would expect that's what they
would do; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. That was their duty; correct?
    A. Well I don't know about "duty," but there certainly was a charge for
the TIRC to fulfill at least the function of public relations, public
information.
    Q. No. But you said it had to be factual and accurate; correct?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. And you considered that, based on what you read as their charge,
that that was their responsibility; correct?
    A. I can't accept the term "responsibility" any more than "duty." This
is a -- being formed by the industry in the hope that they can present a
fair appraisal of the health hazards of smoking.
    Q. Didn't you think the industry at that time had a duty or
responsibility to convey information that it knew based on what you've
learned from these documents?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, no foundation for that, calls for a
legal conclusion.
    THE COURT: No, you may answer that. You may answer.
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi, what was duty and responsibility.
    Q. Just don't know one way or the other; correct, doctor?
    A. No.
    Q. Now if you go down to the organizational heading on page one, Roman
numeral II, "Organization," do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. States as follows: "Because of the anti-trust background, the
companies do not favor the incorporation of a formal association. Instead,
they prefer strongly the organization of an informal committee which will
be specifically charged with the public relations function and readily
identified as such."
    If you turn over to the next page, sir. "For example, Mr. Hahn reported
that one name they had considered was the 'Tobacco Industry Committee for
Public Information.' John Hill suggested that he felt the word 'research'
should appear along with 'information' in the title of the committee." Do
you see that, sir?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. Now Mr. Hill was from Hill & Knowlton, the public relations
firm; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And from reading this and from your knowledge of the background of
the organization known as CTR today, you knew that they were specifically
charged with the public relations function; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And when they were formed, they incorporated the public relations
individual, Mr. Hill's suggestion that the term "research" be put in its
name; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now at this meeting in 1953 you learned that the industry conveyed
to Mr. Hill their opinion with regard to whether there was any scientific
basis for the claims against smoking; correct?
    A. I was not at the meeting, Mr. Ciresi, and I -- clearly. I was an
intern in 1953 and I was busy.
    Q. No, I understand that, sir. But let me back up again so we put this
in proper perspective.
    *9 You've read some of these documents; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you've learned things from these documents as to what was
happening; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And during the course of this litigation you have been
designated as the spokesperson for the CTR to answer questions regarding
the history of the CTR; correct?
    MR. WEBER: Let me object to that as a misstatement.
    MR. CIRESI: May I ask, Your Honor, what is a misstatement? I'd ask
counsel to say what is a misstatement about that.
    MR. WEBER: I don't think Dr. Glenn is designated as the CTR historian.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Sir, were you designated pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure to
testify on certain matters regarding the CTR?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi. You're asking me a legal question. I -- I
guess I am a representative of the CTR.
    Q. And in this case were you not, pursuant to the Rules of Civil
Procedure, designated as the spokesman -- spokesperson for the CTR on a
number of subjects?
    MR. WEBER: Object to the vagueness of that, Your Honor. Can't we move
on and ask the questions, find out what he knows?
    THE COURT: Well just -- just a moment, please. Has he been designated
--
    MR. CIRESI: Yes, he has, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: -- or not, counsel?
    MR. WEBER: Well I've checked with CTR counsel who says that he was not
uniformly designated for all areas on CTR. Is that correct?
        (Inaudible comment by Mr. Steven Klugman to Mr. Weber.)
    MR. WEBER: Okay. He was produced in response to a 30(b)(6), but not
with respect to everything that ever happened over the 50 years.
    THE COURT: All right. He's been designated. Proceed.
    MR. CIRESI: Thank you.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. You understand you were designated as the spokesperson then of the
CTR.
    A. If counsel and His Honor tell me so, I accept that.
    Q. All right. Now --
    And that's why I'm asking you these questions, because you're the
person that's been produced. Do you understand that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Now if we can go back to the document, then, the industry's
position, when you read this document, did you ascertain whether or not the
industry provided to the CTR a scientific basis to show there's no sound
reason to say that smoking is related to health? Did you make that
investigation?
    A. No.
    Q. Do you know, based on your conversations with people at the CTR,
whether any such investigation was made back in 1954?
    A. In 1953 and 1954, the time of this document, there was emerging a
body of evidence that linked smoking with a variety of diseases, and nobody
knew whether it was a causal relationship or whether it was a risk factor
or whether it was even associated. And there were early epidemiologic
studies that had been undertaken that were beginning to bring the
information to public attention and to the attention of the medical
community, but there were no definitive studies that said smoking causes
cancer or smoking causes heart disease. In part, the TIRC, which was formed
as a consequence of this meeting that we're discussing, was charged with
underwriting, funding efforts to obtain this information.
    *10 I hope that's responsive.
    Q. Well it wasn't, but I -- I like the last part of it. You said they
were charged with underwriting --
    A. Subsequently --
    THE COURT: Counsel, counsel, no comments here.
    MR. CIRESI: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I withdraw the comments.
    Q. I apologize to you, doctor.
    The last part of it, you said they were charged with undertaking
subsequent investigation to determine whether smoking caused the diseases;
is that right?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's not exactly what he said.
    THE COURT: Okay. You can answer that.
    A. My language may have been at odds with the facts, but one of the
purposes of TIRC, in addition to public information and public relations,
was to underwrite appropriate research into the questions of smoking and
health.
    Q. Okay. I'll accept that, charged with underwriting appropriate --
    MR. WEBER: I object to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Yes. Counsel, please refrain from commentary on the
witness's response.
    Q. Charged with the appropriate -- strike that.
    Charged with undertaking appropriate research into smoking and health.
Is that what you said?
    A. I can't remember exactly how I said it, Mr. Ciresi. But one of the
-- one of the purposes of TIRC was to underwrite -- that is, fund --
appropriate biomedical research into issues of smoking and health.
    Q. All right. Then I will accept what you said. Underwrite --
    MR. WEBER: Objection again, Your Honor.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor --
    THE COURT: Go ahead.
    Q. I will accept your words, sir. And you and I need to be on the same
definition so we can communicate. You understand that?
    A. Well I don't know how we could disagree. Funding appropriate
biomedical research, I think, was -- is fairly simple.
    Q. Into smoking and health, correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. All right. Now, I want to go back to the question I asked you
before. In your investigation, did you ascertain whether the companies
provided to the CTR -- which was then known as the TIRC -- information that
it had in its files regarding smoking and health?
    A. I didn't ascertain that, but I think there's ample evidence that
information that the companies held was information that was generally
available in the biomedical research community.
    Q. Sir, my question is very specific. Did you conduct an investigation
to ascertain whether the companies provided information they had in their
files regarding smoking and health?
    A. I did not undertake any investigation to determine that.
    Q. Did you instruct anyone to undertake such an investigation?
    A. No, sir. This is ancient history, you know, this is nearly 50 years
ago.
    Q. Okay.
    THE COURT: Counsel, maybe we should take a short recess.
    MR. CIRESI: All right.
    THE CLERK: Court stands in recess.
        (Recess taken.)
    THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
        (Jury enters the courtroom.)
    THE CLERK: You may be seated.
    THE COURT: Counsel.
    *11 MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now sir, during the course of your testimony we'll refer to the TIRC
and CTR as just the CTR. Is that agreeable with you? Then I don't have to
keep saying both organizations.
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did the CTR in 1954 issue a statement that smoking causes lung
cancer?
    A. Not to my knowledge.
    Q. Has the CTR today issued a statement that smoking causes lung
cancer?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. So from what you call the ancient history, over 40 years ago, right
up to today, there's been no public pronouncement by the CTR that smoking
causes lung cancer; correct?
    A. That's correct, Mr. Ciresi. And the reason is that --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- direct causal relationship has not been established.
    MR. CIRESI: I move to strike the non-responsive portion.
    THE COURT: It is non-responsive. It will be stricken.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now, going back again to 19 -- late 1953, at this meeting, Exhibit
18905, which you have in front of you, the industry wanted to sponsor a
public relations campaign which was positive in nature and entirely pro
cigarette; correct?
    A. I haven't read that, no, sir.
    Q. Can --
    A. I --
    Q. Can you look at page two of Exhibit 18905 under Roman numeral III,
"The Industry's Position," the fourth full paragraph.
    A. I see that now. Yes. I see that statement.
    Q. And the industry stated that they are confident that they could
supply Hill & Knowlton with comprehensive and authoritative scientific
material which completely refutes the health charges; correct?
    A. I see the statement.
    Q. Did you make an investigation to determine whether or not the
industry provided CTR with information in 1954 that completely refuted the
health charges?
    A. No, I did not make such an investigation.
    Q. Did the industry at any point in time right up to today ever provide
information to the CTR which completely refuted the health charges?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi, what information was provided. That
predates my time. We're talking about an era long before I arrived.
    Q. Sir, my question is from 1954 right up to today, has the industry
provided information to the CTR that completely refutes the health charges?
    A. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to the next page, please. And I'd like
to specifically direct your attention to the indented paragraph that
starts, "Do the companies consider...." Do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. "Do the companies consider that their own advertising and
competitive practices have been a principal factor in creating a health
problem?
    "The companies voluntarily admitted this to be the case even before the
question was asked. They have informally talked over the problem and will
try to do something about it." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. And you've seen that before; haven't you, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now what, based on your investigations, had the companies done to
create a health problem as of that time?
    *12 A. I did not investigate that, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Do you know what health problem is being referred to?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Do you know if it relates to lung cancer, sir?
    MR. WEBER: Objection. He said he had no knowledge. It's now
argumentative.
    THE COURT: Sustained.
    Q. Have you ever seen any documents of the industry which might give
some inclination or clue as to what this health problem was?
    MR. WEBER: Same objection, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: No, you may answer that.
    A. Well you're asking me to interpret the relatively few company
documents that I've seen, and I'm just -- I'm not able to do that. I don't
know the answer to your question.
    Q. Fair enough.
    You do know that the industry issued a Frank Statement; don't you, sir?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And in that Frank Statement they made representations to the
American public; didn't they?
    A. I don't know what representation. It was an advertisement announcing
the formation of TIRC.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 14145, which is the Frank
Statement and is in evidence. And that would be in volume two, same volume,
sir.
    A. I have it.
    Q. You have seen that document before; correct?
    A. I have.
    Q. And if you look in the first column toward the bottom, sir, you see
the following statements: "We accept an interest in people's health as a
basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our
business?" Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Okay. And you understood, based upon your history with the CTR, that
that was a responsibility that the companies accepted; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Right up to this day; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. And they also stated, "We believe the products we make are not
injurious to health." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. That's a representation that was made to the public in 1954;
correct?
    A. It is a statement made in the Frank Statement.
    Q. It's a representation made in the Frank Statement by these
defendants who signed it; correct?
    A. Yes. I -- I assume that we are saying the same thing. I don't know
what you mean by "representation" other than the fact that it is stated
here just as you read it.
    Q. Okay. How do you define "representation?"
    A. Well I'm represented in Congress by my elected congressman, I'm
represented here in this courtroom by my attorneys. That's representation.
I guess this is a representation.
    Q. Is that the only kind --
    A. I think we're saying the same thing. I was afraid that you were
asking me something in a legal sense that I didn't understand.
    Q. No, no, I'm just using the words that are here, sir. Okay? Now
you've given me two examples of representations, you're represented by an
attorney and you have a representative in Congress; is that right?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. When you make statements, do you make representations? Is that
another definition?
    A. That would be fine, if that's what it means, but I was afraid that
you were using a legal term that I didn't understand.
    *13 Q. Now when we look at the Frank Statement, there's nothing in
there about representation by an attorney; is there?
    A. I don't know that there is.
    Q. There's nothing in there about a representation by your congressman
or congresswoman; is there?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Okay. So the representation that's being referred to there is a
statement that was made by the industry; correct?
    A. If I interpret "representation" to simply mean the fact that they
made that statement, I agree with you. I don't want to argue with you.
    Q. And they made that statement to the American public; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And as far as you know, they intended the American public to rely on
that statement; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. They intended that statement to be truthful; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. And it said that we do not believe that our products are
injurious to health; correct?
    A. That is a paraphrase of the statement, yes.
    Q. Okay. Now in the memo that we just saw, 18905, the companies had
voluntarily admitted that their practices had created a health problem;
correct?
    A. Yes, but it -- it's a very vague statement. I'm not sure what it
means.
    Q. But sir, we know that this -- or the whole formation of CTR was as a
result of these studies regarding lung cancer; correct? Don't we know that?
    A. No, I don't know that.
    Q. You don't. Okay.
    A. I don't think anyone knows that. The formation of CTR was in
response to the growing body of information that smoking had a deleterious
effect on health, and TIRC was formed in part to try to address the
questions of the necessary research to find out the answers to these
questions.
    Q. All right. A deleterious effect on health. That's why the TIRC in
part was founded; correct?
    A. Right.
    Q. Okay. And in this memo relating to the formation of that very
organization, the companies admitted that they have been a principal factor
in creating a health problem; correct?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered.
    THE COURT: It's been asked and answered.
    Q. Sir, where in the Frank Statement do the defendants state we have
been a principal factor in creating a health problem?
    A. It's not stated in the Frank Statement, --
    Q. Nowhere; correct?
    A. -- as far as I know.
    Q. Is that correct?
    Do you know if there was any statement to the public in 1954 where the
companies admitted that they had been a principal factor in creating a
health problem?
    MR. WEBER: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: No, that's a different question.
    A. I don't know of any such instance.
    Q. Do you know of any such instance right up to today where the tobacco
industry has said and admitted we have been a principal factor in creating
a health problem?
    A. I don't know that any of the companies have ever made a statement of
-- of that nature, but similar statements by industry executives have
indicated that they acknowledge that there is a relationship between
smoking and certain health problems.
    *14 Q. Are you relating to recent congressional testimony, sir?
    A. Recent and in the past.
    Q. Just a few weeks ago when the CEOs of the defendants went in front
of Congress and testified, is that what you're relating to?
    MR. CORRIGAN: Objection, Your Honor, misleading. The "CEOs of the
defendants" is not an accurate statement.
    THE COURT: Yeah. You should be a little more specific, counsel.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Well let me help with that.
    One of them was part of the B.A.T family. Mr. Corrigan's client, B&W,
was one of --
    MR. CORRIGAN: Objection.
    MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, sir.
    Q. Was one of the CEOs --
    THE COURT: Counsel --
    A. -- Brown & Williamson's?
    THE COURT: Counsel, please. If he's rising to make an objection, allow
him to make the objection.
    Go ahead.
    MR. CORRIGAN: Objection. My client is not B&W. That's a misstatement.
The whole question is improper.
    THE COURT: Okay. Proceed with the question.
    Q. Was one of the CEOs B&W?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. Was one of the CEOs RJR?
    A. I don't know.
    I think the chief executives of all of the companies appeared before
Congress, but I was not there and I've not seen it.
    Q. All right. So as far as you know, they all appeared; correct?
    A. As far as I know.
    Q. Okay. And at that point did they admit, to your knowledge, that they
have been a principal factor in creating a health problem?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Okay. So you don't know what they said at that congressional
hearing; correct, sir?
    A. No.
    Q. Do you know if they were seeking immunity for their past actions in
testifying in front --
    MR. WEBER: Object to that as argumentative and a misstatement, Your
Honor.
    THE COURT: Okay. It is not argumentative, but it doesn't seem to be
relevant here. He doesn't seem to know what they said.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, if I -- if I may make a proffer. The proffer in
terms of relevancy is to the punitive damage issue --
    MR. WEBER: Can we make this outside the scope -- if he's going to make
a proffer, outside the scope -- outside the hearing of the jury, Your
Honor? I'm not sure what he's going to say.
    THE COURT: Well neither am I.
        (Laughter.)
    THE COURT: Would you like to approach the bench?
    MR. CIRESI: That would be fine, if you'd rather do it that way.
    THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Sir, do you know if the defendants are seeking any type of immunity
from Congress for their past action?
    A. It's my understanding that that has been recommended.
    Q. So you are aware that the CEOs of these companies are seeking from
Congress immunity for their past conduct; correct?
    A. I know that immunity to liability suits is a -- is one of the
objectives of the tobacco settlement agreement.
    Q. And you've discussed that with people; haven't you, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You've discussed it with people from the tobacco companies; correct?
    A. That particular aspect? I don't know that I have.
    *15 Q. You've discussed aspects about how a proposed settlement might
affect the CTR; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you've been told that it will affect the CTR.
    A. I've been told that it will affect the CTR.
    Q. And what have you been told about that, sir?
    A. Well I've read the -- I've read the -- the 30-page document that was
the proposed tobacco settlement agreement. This was the agreement struck
between attorneys for the tobacco companies and the attorneys general of
the various states that were involved. One of the recommendations relates
to CTR.
    Q. Is the CTR going to be disbanded?
    A. That the CTR activities be dissolved.
    Q. Dissolved.
    So your organization would be gone; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now, back to Exhibit 18905. And what we want to do, sir, is track
the history of the CTR from back when it was formed in 1954 up till now
when there's a proposal for it to be dissolved. Do you understand that?
    A. I guess so.
    Q. All right. Now you recall that I asked you earlier whether or not
the industry was alarmed and you said, "No, I wouldn't agree with that. I'd
use the word concern."
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Can you turn to page four. Let me read something to you at the
top of that page. "As another indication of how serious the problem is, the
officials stated that salesmen in the industry are frantically alarmed and
that the decline in tobacco stocks on the stock exchange market has caused
grave concern, especially since tobacco earnings will be much higher next
year because of the termination of excess profits taxes." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Now, do you recall now that when you read this previously, that
there was not just alarm but frantic alarm within the industry concerning
the seriousness of this problem?
    A. I think the document speaks for itself. That's what's written here,
the salesmen were frantic. I expect they were--
    Their concern was justified; there were public health issues being
raised.
    Q. And -- and you say it's justified because if those charges were
admitted or proven, sales could plummet; correct?
    A. What charges, Mr. Ciresi?
    Q. Health charges.
    A. No, there were no charges. There was scientific evidence that was
beginning to emerge that smoking was related to health problems.
    Q. Did the industry call them charges?
    A. They may have.
    Q. Okay. In fact you know they did; don't you, sir?
    A. I don't know that.
    Q. Have you ever seen that in any of their documents?
    A. I don't recall.
    Q. Now in the last page of this document, do you see the people who are
present at this first meeting?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And one of the individuals was Mr. Hahn, who was president of The
American Tobacco Company; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now at this time do you know, based on your review of documents,
whether the individual companies had knowledge in their own files about
these serious health problems?
    A. I don't know that.
    *16 Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 12581, which is in the
same book, sir.
    Do you have it, sir?
    A. I have it.
    Q. And that's a "SURVEY OF CANCER RESEARCH with emphasis upon POSSIBLE
CARCINOGENS FROM TOBACCO" by Claude E. Teague, Jr., do you see that?
    A. Yes, I do.
    Q. And this is an RJR document and it's dated 2 February 1953. Do you
see that, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you've reviewed this document; haven't you?
    A. I have seen it, yes.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to page 14 of the document, which
concludes -- strike that -- which includes the conclusions of Mr. Teague.
    A. I have it.
    Q. I want to read part of that. Starting with the second sentence, "The
closely parallel increase in cigarette smoking has led to the suspicion
that tobacco smoking is an important etiologic factor in the induction of
primary cancer of the lung. Studies of clinical data tend to confirm the
relationship between heavy and prolonged tobacco smoking and incidence of
cancer of the lung." Do you see that, sir?
    A. I do.
    Q. Okay. Now do you know if that information was part of the
information that was being referred to in Exhibit 18905 where the
industry's CEOs said they have information that will completely refute the
scientific charges?
    A. Well there was information of that sort available. But I also think
Dr. Teague's statement here is scientifically correct, the suspicion that
tobacco smoking was an important etiologic factor, and that's what it was
in 1953, a suspicion.
    Q. Sir --
    A. So I think this is a very good report.
    Q. I'll agree with you on that. Now --
    MR. WEBER: Objection to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    MR. CIRESI: I'll withdraw it, Your Honor.
    Q. You consider this a very good report; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Fair statement of what the epidemiology was at the time?
    A. There was no accurate epidemiology in 1953.
    Q. Fair statement of what the epidemiology was at the time, sir?
    A. Fair statement of the suspicion that smoking bore a relationship to
lung cancer.
    Q. And that is based on the epidemiology of the time; correct? That's
what he's referring to here; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. All right. And this would be an accurate statement at that time;
correct?
    A. I think it probably was. There was this suspicion.
    Q. Now is --
    Does this then go to the issue that was in Exhibit 18905 where the CEOs
of the companies said they are confident they can supply us with
comprehensive and authoritative scientific material which completely
refutes the health charges?
    A. Well there was a lot of such information available. Even the Surgeon
General denied the relationship between smoking and health.
    Q. Well that doesn't mean it completely refutes the charges; does it,
sir?
    A. No. But there were -- there was a great body of evidence that was
negative. So, you know, you're asking me to go back and put myself 50 years
ago into the minds of people that I didn't even know.
    *17 Q. No, I'm not asking you to do that, sir. What I'm asking you to
do is look at the history and see what the companies knew and what they
said publicly. That's what I'm asking you to do.
    A. Well I don't think --
    Q. All right?
    A. -- the companies knew anything, and Dr. Teague does not suggest that
they knew anything.
    Q. Is Dr. Teague's statement consistent or inconsistent with the
statement of the CEOs that they would provide comprehensive and
authoritative scientific material which completely refutes the health
charges?
    A. It is perfectly consistent, because there was a large body of
evidence there that could have been used to refute, which is -- that is, to
counter or to debate --
    Q. So --
    A. -- the question.
    Q. So Dr. Teague's statement, quote, "Studies of clinical data tend to
confirm the relationship between heavy and prolonged smoking and incidence
of cancer of the lung," is consistent, according to your testimony under
oath, with the executive statement, "They are confident they can supply us
with comprehensive and authoritative scientific material which completely
refutes the health charges." Is that right?
    A. It is consistent, yes.
    Q. Okay. Now --
    A. And I would call your attention to the fact that Dr. Teague
acknowledges that this is studies of clinical data. Medically speaking,
clinical data means patient-derived information, it -- it doesn't mean
scientific fact. And it also says it tends to confirm the relationship
between heavy and prolonged tobacco smoking, and I think that was perfectly
true in 1953. That also is consistent with the fact that the companies may
have felt that they had evidence that would refute the argument that there
was any relationship.
    Q. So you'd say it's consistent; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. Now they're talking about the health charges; correct, in
Exhibit 18905?
    A. You'll have to read the statement to me, Mr. Ciresi. I don't see the
word "charges."
    Q. Well let me read it again, sir. Referring again to the executives of
the company, "They are confident they can supply us with comprehensive and
authoritative scientific material which completely refutes the health
charges;" correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Remember, I asked you whether or not the term was used, "health
charges?" Remember that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. So it was used; correct?
    A. The word is there, yes.
    Q. And the industry looked at it as health charges; didn't they?
    A. Well "charges" in the sense that there is a suspicion that there is
a relationship, I -- I accept that. I don't think that's inconsistent at
all.
    Q. Now do you know if the industry in 1954, or any member of the
industry, made a public statement such as is contained in Dr. Teague's
memorandum?
    A. No, I don't know whether they did or not. And I think it's
immaterial whether they did or not.
    Q. I didn't ask you whether it was immaterial. Do you know if they made
it?
    A. I don't know.
    *18 Q. You do know that lung cancer causes death; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. You --
    Is there something funny about that, sir?
    A. No. I think everybody knows that, and people have known that since
1895.
    Q. That was true in 1954; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. These were serious matters of health --
    A. Yes.
    A. -- concerning smokers; weren't they, sir?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And when they're serious matters of health, you would agree that a
company who puts out a product has a responsibility to get out all the
information that that company knows about that product; wouldn't you?
    A. I don't know what their responsibility was. They were manufacturing
a legal product. We were beginning to raise questions in the medical
community about health effects of the product.
    Q. Sir, you're a medical doctor; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Wouldn't you agree that when you're dealing with an issue of life
and death regarding the use of a product, that you would expect it to be
the responsibility of the company to get out all of the information it
knows about the dangers of its product?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's the question that was just
asked.
    THE COURT: You may answer that.
    A. I don't know what you mean by "responsibility," Mr. Ciresi. I think
that the companies acted very responsibly in setting up a research arm that
would address scientific questions in an unbiased and effective fashion. So
--
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- as far as responsibility is concerned, I think that demonstrates
a lot of responsibility.
    Q. Well you just said you don't know what responsibility is, then you
used  "responsible" in your answer.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor.
    A. In the sense that I used it.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, that's argumentative.
    THE COURT: It is argumentative.
    Q. Did you say you did not understand "responsibility," but then you
used  "responsible" in your answer? Did you do that?
    A. I said I didn't understand "responsible" in the sense that you used
it. I think you're using it in a -- in a legal sense. And I'm saying that
as I view social responsibility, the industry reacted appropriately in
setting up a research arm.
    Q. Well we'll get to that and what that research arm did. But let's
talk about, then, responsible in a social sense. That's what you said;
correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Do you believe in a social sense that a company which has a
product that can cause death, or may cause death, has a responsibility to
get out all of the information it knows about that product?
    A. Well I can't accept the term "cause," because in 1953 and even today
we do not -- we're not sure about causation scientifically.
    Q. I know you're not, sir, but that's not what my question is. So let
me -- let me repeat the question.
    MR. WEBER: Objection to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Try and refrain from commentary, counsel.
    MR. CIRESI: I will. I will indeed, Your Honor.
    *19 Q. And I apologize to you for the commentary. But try to listen to
my question. All right, doctor?
    A. I'm very capable to listen to your question, Mr. Ciresi. I'm not
able to answer all of them.
    Q. Well I understand that. Now just listen to my question.
    Do you believe from a social-responsible standpoint that a company
which markets a product, mass markets a product, should get out all of the
information it knows about the hazards of that product which may or may not
cause death?
    A. I've heard your question. I still don't know whether they're
responsible for doing that or not.
    Q. Okay. You simply can't answer that question; correct?
    A. I cannot. I don't think anyone can.
    Q. Sir, can you direct your attention to Exhibit 18904.
    A. I have it.
    Q. This is another Hill & Knowlton document; correct?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi. And I'm not sure I've ever seen this
document.
    Q. It was one of the ones provided for you to review, sir.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor. I think he just said he hadn't seen
the document.
    MR. CIRESI: Well I'm trying to refresh his recollection, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: You may answer.
    A. I -- I don't think I have ever seen this, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Did you see it --
    A. If I have, I've forgotten it.
    Q. Okay. Well that's what we're trying to do, refresh your
recollection.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 18904.
    MR. WEBER: What did he say?
    Okay. I have the same -- I'm sorry, Your Honor, I'm not hearing all
that well. I have the same objection to this one that I did with respect to
the earlier document characterized by Mr. Ciresi as being a Hill & Knowlton
document, plus in addition the fact that, particularly with this witness,
there's no foundation for it.
    THE COURT: Was this document noticed to the witness?
    MR. CIRESI: It was, Your Honor. And it's also a Hill & Knowlton
document that's authenticated, and the same rules of evidence apply to
this, as to Exhibit 18904.
    THE COURT: Court will receive 18904.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now sir, from the previous document you knew that Hill & Knowlton
was going to talk to the research directors of the companies before the
Frank Statement was issued; correct?
    A. I believe so.
    Q. And can you turn your attention, please, to page two of this
memorandum. And you see here that there is notes of interviews with the
research directors?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And one of those statements was, "You'll get from them little real
information about lung cancer pro or con, but you'll find some mighty
interesting opinions. One of the men said, 'It's fortunate for us that
cigarettes are a habit they can't break.' Said another, "Boy! Wouldn't it
be wonderful if our company was the first to produce a cancer free
cigarette. What we could do to the competition!"'
    Now sir, in your investigation, did you ascertain whether or not any of
these companies ever told the public that they would like to produce a
cancer free cigarette?
    *20 A. Mr. Ciresi, I did not make such an investigation, as I told you
before.
    Q. Do you know if any such information was provided to the CTR?
    A. No, sir, I do not know.
    Q. Did you ever see any such information in the files of the CTR, sir?
    A. Not to my recollection.
    Q. Now you're not a qualified expert in addiction; are you?
    A. No, I don't think so. I understand addiction from general medical
point of view, but I'm not a qualified expert.
    Q. Now the CTR has never issued a statement that smoking is addictive;
has it?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Have any of the companies ever issued a statement on their product
that smoking is addictive?
    A. I don't know that they have, but I think everybody knows it's a
habit- forming product.
    Q. That's not what I asked you, sir.
    A. Yes, it is what you asked me.
    Q. No, it wasn't what I asked you. My question was this: Do you know if
any of the companies ever said on their product that smoking is addictive?
    A. I do not know that.
    Q. Do you know if Liggett has done that?
    A. I do not know that.
    Q. Do you know if any of the CEOs of any of these companies have ever
admitted that tobacco is addictive?
    A. I do not know whether they have or not.
    Q. Are you familiar with their congressional testimony on that?
    A. Only to the extent of reading about it in the newspaper.
    Q. Did you learn that they did admit that smoking was addictive?
    A. I've forgotten --
    MR. WEBER: I object to that as a mischaracterization, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Well you may answer that.
    A. I've forgotten the exact statement. I think they acknowledged the
things that we know in the general public, --
    Q. Now --
    A. -- not just in the medical community.
    Q. Did they -- did they acknowledge in Congress a couple weeks ago,
based on your reading, that smoking was addictive?
    MR. WEBER: Objection again, Your Honor, calling for information from a
newspaper, it's been asked and answered, and it's a misstatement.
    THE COURT: It hasn't been answered.
    A. I don't know whether they admitted addiction or not.
    Q. Do you know if in 1994 they denied addiction in Congress?
    A. I recall that -- I think I recall that they did, on the basis of
good scientific fact.
    Q. Well you just said everybody in the world knew it.
    A. Well I didn't say addiction, I said habit-forming, habituation.
There's a big difference.
    Q. Didn't you just say that they just admitted what everybody knew from
common knowledge? Wasn't that the substance of what you said?
    A. That smoking is habit-forming.
    Q. Did they learn that between 1994 and 1998?
    A. No, sir, they learned that from 1900.
    Q. 1900. But in 1994 each one of the CEOs of these companies stood up,
put their hand up and swore under oath that it wasn't addictive; didn't
they, sir?
    MR. CORRIGAN: Objection, Your Honor, that is not a correct statement.
    MR. CIRESI: I'll exclude B.A.T Industries from that.
    MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you.
    *21 Q. Isn't that right, sir?
    A. I remember that they did that, and I -- I -- the justification of it
is based on the fact that they had scientific authorities saying that the
habit of smoking was not the same as addiction to heroin or cocaine.
    Q. So they denied in 1994 what you just said everybody knew since the
1900s.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, that's a clear misstatement of what's
been said, and it's argumentative.
    THE COURT: Well you may answer.
    Q. Isn't that right, sir?
    A. Would you ask the question again, Mr. Ciresi? I lost it.
    Q. Sure. In 1994 the CEOs of Brown & Williamson, RJR, Philip Morris,
American Tobacco, Lorillard, raised their right hand, swore under oath, and
said smoking is not addictive, something you said that was known since the
1900s, early 1900s.
    MR. WEBER: Objection again, Your Honor.
    Q. Is that correct, sir?
    THE COURT: You may answer.
    A. I will, but I'll have to go back to my original statement. I said
it's been known for a hundred years that smoking is habit-forming. But
there are scientific authorities that were telling the tobacco executives
that habituation is different from addiction, and they were asked the
question about addiction. They did swear that smoking was not addictive,
and there's much scientific evidence to -- to support that view.
    Q. And in 1994, that's six years after the Surgeon General issued a
report that said smoking was addictive; correct?
    A. Well, Mr. Ciresi, we're into a area that is very gray, and that is
what is addiction. And there are --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- as many definitions as there are authorities in the area.
    Q. Sir, you just said you're not an expert in addiction.
    A. I'm not.
    Q. All right. Now -- and I didn't --
    I wasn't into a gray area. I asked you a very simple question. In 1988
the Surgeon General issued a report that said cigarette smoking is
addictive; correct?
    A. I would have to know --
    Yes, that's correct.
    Q. Thank you.
    And six years after that, those CEOs stood up, raised their hand and
said it wasn't addictive; correct?
    A. Yes.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's been asked and answered. It's
argumentative.
    THE COURT: It has been asked and answered.
    Q. Now sir, do you know what they learned between 1994 and two weeks or
three weeks ago when they stood up and said smoking is addictive?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, counsel is testifying now.
    THE COURT: No, you may answer that.
    Q. Do you know what they learned?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. You do know, though, that they were seeking immunity; don't you?
    A. I -- I -- I don't know what the purpose was.
    Q. Just don't know.
    A. And I was not a part of the -- these hearings, as you understand.
    Q. Sir, can you direct your attention back to Exhibit 18904.
    A. 1890 --
    Q. Four.
    A. Four.
    Q. Now on the same page do you see the statement, "At the moment, these
men feel thrown for a loop. They've competed for years - not in price, not
in any real difference of quality - but just in ability to conjure up more
hypnotic claims and brighter assurances for what their own brand might do
for a smoker, compared to another brand." Do you see that?
    *22 A. I do.
    Q. Do you know, sir, based on the investigation you did make, whether
or not that relates to the statement in Exhibit 18905 where the companies
said they have been a principal factor in creating a health problem?
    A. I don't know. I can't interpret any relationship.
    Q. You don't see any relationship at all; correct?
    A. No, I didn't say that. I -- I -- I just simply cannot interpret it.
I don't know what's meant.
    Q. Okay. Can you go to the next page of this document, and do you see
right below the stars there, if you will, the following is written: "There
is only one problem -- confidence, and how to establish it; public
assurance, and how to create it -- in perhaps" -- I'm sorry -- "in a
perhaps long interim when scientific doubts must remain." Do you see that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now in discharging its public relations function, did the CTR
undertake, based on your investigation, to create public assurance?
    A. I did not investigate that.
    Q. You read the Frank Statement; correct?
    A. I read the Frank Statement.
    Q. And when you looked at the Frank Statement, as you've testified, the
companies said there were no health problems with the cigarettes; correct?
    A. Companies did not believe that their products were injurious to
health, and I accept that that's what they believed.
    Q. And they also said that they will always cooperate closely with
those whose task it is to safeguard the public health; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And in the first part of the Frank Statement they said that
"Although" -- referring to the studies that had been conducted -- "Although
conducted by doctors of professional standing, these experiments are not
regarded as conclusive in the field of cancer research. However, we do not
believe that any serious medical research, even though its results are
inconclusive, should be disregarded or lightly dismissed." Correct?
    A. That's what is written, yes.
    Q. Now --
    And they talked about doctors of professional standing; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And they were talking about the doctors who had conducted these
studies; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And then in the next paragraph they wanted to do something else with
regard to getting across their message; didn't they?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And they wanted to talk about it being in the public interest to
call attention to the fact that eminent doctors and research scientists
have publicly questioned the claimed significance of these experiments;
correct?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. So they contrasted the doctors of professional standing who found
this relationship, and then on the other hand they said that there were
eminent doctors and research scientists who didn't disagree -- or
disagreed; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now sir, have you seen documents internally that would indicate that
the CRT's and The Tobacco Institute's charge was to create doubt about the
health charges?
    A. Not to create doubt, but to acknowledge the differences of opinion
that existed at that time.
    *23 Q. Have you ever seen any documents which stated that the charge of
the TI, Tobacco Institute, and CTR was to create public doubt?
    A. I don't know that I've ever seen that statement. And I can't speak
for The Tobacco Institute; that's an entirely separate organization.
    Q. Fair enough. We'll get to those.
    You don't remember right now; correct?
    A. I don't.
    Q. Okay. Now sir, if you go to the next page of Exhibit 18904, which
states "Problem 1." Now you understand this is a document that led to the
formation of the CTR; correct?
    MR. WEBER: I object, Your Honor, there's been no such testimony to
that. Counsel is testifying.
    THE COURT: Sustained.
    Q. Sir, do you know if this is a document that immediately preceded the
formation of the CTR?
    A. No, sir, I do not know that. You've told me that this is a document
from Hill & Knowlton, which is a public relations firm. I don't know that
this preceded or followed the formation of CTR/TIRC.
    Q. You do know that Hill & Knowlton was the one who formed the CTR
together with the industry; correct?
    A. I think they were employed by the industry.
    Q. Now direct your attention, then, to page four, "Problem 1."
    "The very first problem is to establish some public confidence in the
industry's leaders themselves, so that the public will believe their
assertion of their own interest in the public health." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Okay. And as we've seen, one of the principles of the Frank
Statement was that the industry was going to work closely with public
health officials; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. In the interest of the public health; correct?
    A. Yes.
    I don't have the Frank Statement in front of me so I can't acknowledge
that your words are exactly correct, but the principle is.
    Q. If you -- if you want to confirm that, you can take a look. It's in
the same volume, 14145. Do you see there where they say, "We have always --
We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it
is to safeguard the public health?"
    A. Yes. And I think they have done so.
    Q. That's what they said; correct, sir?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. All right. And you understand that what we're doing here in this
court is to find out whether they did so or didn't. You understand?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's commentary, and he's lecturing.
    THE COURT: No, you can answer the question.
    Q. You understand that; don't you, sir?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. You don't. Okay.
    Now can you look down at "Problem 2" on Exhibit 18904. "To reassure the
public, and still instinctive fears, in this interim when definitive facts
for giving complete assurance are still lacking; when scientific doubts
must remain; and when new 'unfavorable' information can emerge from some
laboratory at any time, to act as a bomb shell on the whole tobacco
industry -- if it has meanwhile tried to pooh-pooh the unfavorable data" --
I'm sorry, "the unfavorable finding to date." Do you see that?
    *24 A. I do.
    Q. And you understood that what the CTR did in the Frank Statement was
encourage people to go on and smoke and take pleasure from it; correct?
    A. I don't understand that, no. Does it -- I --
    I don't know that it says go on and smoke and take pleasure in that.
    Q. Well can you look at the second column of the Frank Statement where
it says, "For more than 300 years tobacco has given solace, relaxation and
enjoyment to mankind." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Now, sir, do you think that that's sort of an encouragement that
smoking is a pleasurable thing to do?
    A. I think it speaks for itself.
    Q. Okay. And that does speak to the pleasures of smoking when it speaks
for itself; correct?
    A. Says just exactly what it says, "For more than 300 years tobacco has
given solace, relaxation and enjoyment to mankind." That's a factual
statement.
    Q. And that's consistent with what we see in 18904 where it's reported
that a smoker "might just as well go on enjoying his smoke in this interim
while research pursues the facts, with full assurance that any -- that if
any cancer- causing agent is ever really found in tobacco, the
manufacturers will quickly find a way to eliminate it." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Have the individual manufacturing defendants removed cancer-causing
agents from their cigarettes?
    A. They haven't found cancer-causing agents in cigarettes.
    Q. Never, right up to today; right?
    A. Today, yes.
    Q. That's your opinion; correct?
    A. That's the scientific opinion.
    MR. CIRESI: Move to strike, Your Honor, it's non-responsive.
    THE COURT: It is non-responsive.
    Q. That is your opinion; correct?
    A. It is my opinion, along with that of the scientific community.
    MR. CIRESI: Move to strike the second part of the answer.
    THE COURT: I'll let it stand.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now sir, do you know if the defendants have represented that they
will remove cancer-causing agents?
    A. If they could identify it, yes.
    Q. Okay. And you don't think they've ever identified any cancer-causing
agent in any of their cigarettes; correct?
    A. I'm not sure that's correct, and that's a very broad statement. Many
chemical compounds have been identified in cigarette smoke, many -- many
particulate substances, over 3,000, so the task is formidable, and I don't
know that anybody can pinpoint any one specific agent, though there are a
number of agents that have been incriminated as possibly carcinogenic.
    Q. I'm just asking a simple question.
    A. Well I'm giving you -- it doesn't -- doesn't --
    It doesn't call for a simple answer, Mr. Ciresi. You can't answer it
simply.
    Q. Have any of the defendants ever found a cancer-causing agent in
their cigarette smoke?
    MR. WEBER: Object as asked and answered, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: I don't think it's been answered yet.
    Q. If you know.
    A. Well I do know, but you're asking a very simple question about an
extremely complex problem and I can't give you a simple "yes" or "no"
answer so that. I can -- I can tell you what -- what I know from --
    *25 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you know if any of the defendants have
ever said they have found cancer-causing agents in their cigarettes?
    A. They have found carcinogenic agents. Whether they cause cancer in
humans or not is an issue that has not been determined. And they found
these agents in very minute quantities.
    Q. Well, sir, you do know that the Surgeon General of the United States
has said that cigarettes cause cancer. You do know that.
    A. I do know that. And I know the sense in which the Surgeon General
uses the term "cause."
    Q. Sir --
    A. And it's different from the scientific --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- terminology.
    Q. I just asked you a very simple question. Do you know --
    MR. WEBER: Object to the continuing commentary, Your Honor.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, counsel keeps making objections to
non-responsive answers. I'm entitled to get a responsive answer from the
witness.
    THE COURT: All right. You may answer the question.
    THE WITNESS: I'm -- I'm trying, Your Honor, to answer the best I can.
    Q. Then, sir, if you listen to my question, and I'll listen to your
answer, and we'll get through this a lot quicker. Okay?
    Has the Surgeon General said that smoking causes cancer?
    A. The Surgeon General has said that smoking causes cancer.
    Q. Has the American Lung Association said that smoking causes cancer?
    A. American Lung Association has said, but I -- I must add to this the
fact that they are using the term "cause" in a different sense than the
scientific term.
    Q. Sir --
    A. And I accept it. The -- the word "cause" --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- in their circumstances is fine.
    Q. Sir, can you just answer my question? Has the American Medical
Association said that smoking causes cancer?
    A. The same answer, Mr. Ciresi. But I think it's misleading to the jury
if they don't know that causation issue is -- is a scientific matter.
    Q. Sir, has the American Medical Association said that smoking causes
cancer? "Yes" or "no."
    A. Yes.
    Q. Thank you.
    Has the World Health Organization said that smoking causes cancer?
"Yes" or "no?"
    A. Yes, and I accept that, but --
    Q. Thank you.
    A. -- again we come back to the definition of "causation."
    Q. Now, sir, can you turn your attention back to Exhibit 18904.
    A. 18 --
    Q. 904.
    Now at the top of page five there is reported that any cancer-causing
agent will be eliminated; correct? That's reported.
    A. I see it.
    Q. Okay. And indeed, over at page seven of the same report it is stated
at the bottom, "You can count on the cigarette companies, paren, who have
obligated themselves to pour millions of dollars into cancer research,
close paren, to take anything out of your cigarette that is a health
hazard, if our science ever really finds any such hazard in the wonderful
tobacco leaf." Correct?
    A. I see it.
    Q. Now, do you know if any of these companies in their own internal
documents ever said that they found a health hazard in the wonderful
tobacco leaf at any point over the last 40 years?
    *26 A. Oh, I --
    They most certainly did.
    Q. Okay. Now do you know, then, if they removed those hazards?
    A. Mr. Ciresi, this document that you're referring to is a -- is
written by public relations men. This is a document full of hype and
advertising terms. And to equate this with scientific evidence is really
straining things. I know that the companies have identified potential
carcinogens in tobacco smoke. The -- the problem relates to defining
scientifically the exact mode of -- of effect, and it gets to be a very
complicated problem.
    So the answer to your question is yes, they have found agents in
cigarette smoke that they think could be carcinogens.
    Q. That wasn't my question. That was the question before which you
answered yes to. My last question was: Do you know if they removed any of
those hazards that they found from their cigarettes?
    A. Any hazards or any cancer-causing agents? Which --
    Q. Hazards.
    A. Well I think that they --
    You know, I'm not an expert on the manufacture of cigarettes. My --
    Q. They have just --
    A. My -- my field is the science, and CTR deals with science, not with
the manufacturing of cigarettes.
    Q. Sir --
    A. So I can't speak to that.
    Q. So you don't know if they did or didn't. Is that your answer?
    A. Well I know that they've made efforts to filter cigarettes, I know
the things that everybody knows, the changes that they made in their
product over the years.
    Q. That's not what I asked you.
    A. I'm not -- I'm not an expert in this area and I can't testify to
that.
    Q. So you don't know if they have removed the hazards; do you?
    A. I don't know -- I don't know the details of manufacturing of
cigarettes. I'm not in that business.
    Q. Thank you.
    Now can you turn your attention to page five of Exhibit 18904.
    A. Are we still in the same document?
    Q. Yes, sir, we are.
    A. Okay.
    Q. And do you see page five, problem number three?
    A. I do.
    Q. And it's "How to validate this message of assurance." Do you see
that?
    A. I see it.
    Q. And do you see that there's being reported here by Hill & Knowlton
what they found by talking to the men in the industry?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Okay. And what they say is "The men talked to in the cigarette
companies tend to:
        (a) Think occasionally in terms of trying to 'smear' the personal
responsibility, motives, judgments, or techniques of Wynders -- Wynder and
others supporting him." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Now Dr. Wynder was one of the doctors who reported in the medical
literature about the relationship between smoking and lung cancer back in
the fifties; correct?
    A. Dr. Wynder was the man who painted tars on the backs of mice and
rats in the laboratory.
    Q. And that was reported in the medical literature.
    A. Yes.
    Q. Correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. Now down at (c), it was also reported here back in late
1953 that the men talking in the cigarette companies tend "To overlook the
fact that in this particular instance, the stakes for the public are even
larger than for the tobacco manufacturers. (For the public, an issue
touching the deepest of human fears and instincts is involved - the issue
of uncontrollable disease and death. Hence cigarette companies might not
readily be forgiven, if their approach to this problem is stemmed only from
their eagerness to protect their earnings, and if they twisted the research
of medical science (which seeks to save men) into a device to save
stockholders. There is no precedent where a great industry has been forced
to face such grave issues."
    *27 Now, sir, did your investigation into the history of the CTR show
that this industry was faced with that precise issue in late 1953 and early
1954?
    A. Well as I've answered before, I didn't do an investigation of that
sort. And this document is written by public relations people, not by -- by
scientists.
    Q. Sir, is your answer that you didn't do that investigation?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. All right. Please look at the next paragraph. "In the past, industry
has given little twists to the facts of science, to convert them into sales
propoganda, without much risk. The cigarette industry has indeed been doing
this for years. We can therefore readily understand its assumptions that
the same technique will work now, in devising propoganda. But it is highly
important to note that the deep issues of life-and-death that are now
involved make highly doubtful the question as to whether the familiar
techniques can be relied upon. The stakes are too large; the penalties for
losing could be too great."
    Now, sir, do you see any relationship to that statement and the
statement in Exhibit 18905 where the industry had admitted that they have
-- and their conduct and advertising and competitive practices had been a
principal factor in creating a health problem? Do you see any relationship
of those two?
    A. You're relating this to the document 18905 --
    Q. Right.
    A. -- which is the -- the minutes of a meeting, background material on
the cigarette industry client.
    Q. That's correct.
    A. Well, you know, none of this -- I don't know what relationship there
is, but it -- clearly they're all dealing with the same topic.
    Q. Right. Okay. And they're dealing with disease and death; correct?
    A. They're talking about it from a lay point of view. There -- there's
no science in this, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Sir, they're talking about disease and death; correct?
    A. That is what is said here, and it speaks for itself.
    Q. Do you know how many Americans have died of lung cancer from 1954 up
to today?
    A. I do not know.
    Q. Do you know how many Americans have died of cardiovascular disease
from 1954 up to today?
    A. I do not know.
    Q. Do you know how many Americans have died of chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease from 1954 right up to today, sir?
    A. I do not know. You're asking me for epidemiologic information, and I
simply don't have that.
    Q. Now sir, in fact these companies did know back in 1958 that smoking
caused disease; didn't they?
    A. Will you define "cause" for me? Because we get into a very difficult
area. "Cause" to me means proven causation, replicable causation, and if
you use the -- the term "cause" in the lay sense, as the Surgeon General
has used it, I'll accept "cause."
    Q. Did these companies, using how the Surgeon General used it, know
that cigarettes caused lung cancer in 1954? Did they know that, sir?
    A. There was no scientific evidence in 1954 or, as you previously said,
1958.
    *28 Q. So they didn't know it in the lay sense, as you're saying it, in
1958; is that what you're saying?
    A. Mr. Ciresi, I said what I said.
    Q. All right. Can --
    A. If you want to define "cause," we -- we can go through that at
length.
    Q. You just said, sir, that in your opinion the Surgeon General uses
"cause" in a lay sense and says cigarette smoking caused cancer. Isn't that
what you said?
    A. I will accept the use of the word "cause" as used by the Surgeon
General, because he's using it as a warning to people --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- that this is a health hazard.
    Q. Sir, he said "cause," and you said that was a lay sense; didn't you?
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. Did the companies know that in 1955?
    MR. WEBER: Object, vague. How could they know in '55 what the Surgeon
General said in '64?
    THE COURT: I don't think that was the question.
    You may answer the question.
    A. I can't remember the dates, Mr. Ciresi, the date of the Surgeon
General's first report.
    Q. Did the companies, cigarette manufacturers, in 1955 know that
cigarette smoking caused cancer by using what you called the lay
definition? Did they know?
    A. I don't know that one way or the other. I don't know what they knew.
You're asking me to put myself in a position that's impossible.
    Q. Well can you direct your attention to Exhibit 11028.
    A. 1102?
    Q. 11028, sir. That would be in volume two. It's the very first
exhibit.
    A. I have it.
    Q. Now did anyone from the cigarette companies from 1987 right up to
today ever tell you that cigarette smoking causes cancer?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Which one of the defendants have told you that cigarette smoking
causes cancer?
    A. Which one of the defendants?
    Q. Yes.
    A. My father told me this. The cigarette companies didn't have to tell
me this.
    Q. Sir --
    MR. CIRESI: I move to strike, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: That answer will be stricken as non-responsive.
    Q. Which one of the defendants told you since 1987 that smoking causes
cancer? Which ones?
    A. We never discussed this issue.
    Q. Maybe you misunderstood my previous question. You just answered that
they did tell you that; didn't you, sir?
    A. There is tacit acknowledgment among the sponsors of CTR that they've
got a product that carries a risk factor.
    Q. Sir --
    A. And we know what the risk factors are and these things have been
discussed. For them to make a statement out of context that cigarette
smoking causes cancer is a most unlikely occurrence.
    Q. Well let me --
    A. I don't know that any of them ever said anything like that.
    Q. You don't know if any of them said it. Let me read back the question
and answer.
    "Question: Now did anyone from the cigarette companies from 1987 right
up to today ever tell you that cigarette smoking causes cancer?
    "Answer: Yes."
    You just gave that answer two minutes ago.
    A. Well I -- I'm accepting your use of the term "cause" because we have
discussed the -- the health issues.
    *29 Q. Which defendants told you since 1987 that smoking causes cancer?
Did RJR tell you that?
    A. I can't -- I can't answer that, Mr. Ciresi. I don't know --
    I can't recall of our conversations about the health issues related to
smoking. I can't recall specific conversations with representatives of the
tobacco industry.
    Q. Did Philip Morris --
    A. But --
    Q. -- tell you that, sir?
    A. Same answer, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Did Brown & Williamson tell you that?
    A. Same answer, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Did Lorillard tell you that?
    A. Same answer, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Did Liggett tell you that?
    A. I -- I -- I've never talked to anybody from Liggett, to my --
    Q. You haven't?
    A. No.
    Q. But you do know that since 1987, as you just testified under oath,
that representatives of the industry have told you that; correct, sir? You
just can't remember who; isn't that right?
    A. We --
    Mr. Ciresi, you're asking me something that I can't answer, because we
have had discussions about smoking and health with our directors, we have
made our directors aware of -- of the health issues that our Scientific
Advisory Board has been addressing. There is acknowledgment by the industry
representatives that they have a product that cause -- that causes health
problems, in the lay sense "causes."
    Q. Causes cancer; correct? Correct?
    A. And cardiovascular disease and other problems.
    Q. And chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; correct?
    A. I know -- I know all of them, Mr. Ciresi, you don't need to list
them.
    Q. And bladder cancer; correct?
    A. And if you accept the term "cause." But you're interrupting me.
    MR. WEBER: Could counsel return to the podium, Your Honor? I thought
that was the rule here.
    THE COURT: After he -- I think he wants to read that, but then I do
request that you return to the podium.
    Q. And sir, that's why you answered:
    "Question: Now did anyone from the cigarette companies from 1987 right
up to today ever tell you that cigarette smoking causes cancer?
    "Answer: Yes."
    That's why you said that under oath; isn't that right?
    A. I don't know exactly the context in which I said that. But we have
already discussed this question of cause. We've already discussed the fact
that the -- the companies acknowledge that there are health problems
associated with their tobacco products. And that's what our organization is
here to investigate.
    Q. And not one, not one of these defendants has ever publicly stated,
with the exception of Liggett, that smoking causes the diseases you just
admitted to. Isn't that right, sir? Not one.
    A. I don't know the answer to that.
    Q. The CTR hasn't; has it?
    A. No, sir. We have been --
    THE COURT: Counsel --
    A. -- intent on scientific investigation.
    THE COURT: Counsel, I think maybe we should recess for lunch.
    MR. CIRESI: All right.
    THE CLERK: Court stands in recess.
        (Recess taken.)

    THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
        (Jury enters the courtroom.)
    THE CLERK: Please be seated.
    THE COURT: Counsel.
    MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen.
        (Collective "Good afternoon.")
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Good afternoon, doctor. Good afternoon, sir.
    A. Good afternoon.
    Q. Could you direct your attention to Exhibit 11028, which is in volume
two. It's the first exhibit.
    A. I have it.
    Q. And that is a report on a visit to the United States and Canada
during the period April 17th through May 12th, 1958, by three individuals
from England, Mr. Bentley, Mr. Felton and Mr. Reid. Do you see that, sir?
    A. I see that. I -- I did -- I do know where they're from, but it
doesn't indicate it here.
    Q. And you're familiar with this document; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And Mr. Bentley was from Imperial Tobacco; correct?
    A. I'm sorry, I missed the question.
    Q. Mr. Bentley was from Imperial Tobacco; correct?
    A. I don't know that.
    Q. Can you turn to the next page. Do you see the itinerary there for
those three individuals?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Do you see that they were going to visit a number of companies and
institutions between the period April 17th and May 12th of 1958; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And one of those companies they were going to visit was the American
Tobacco Company in Richmond; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you're familiar with the name Mr. Hanmer; are you not?
    A. No.
    Q. Did you know that he was a top scientist at American?
    A. No, I did not know.
    Q. Did you know that Mr. Harlan was the head of research and
development at American?
    A. No, sir, I did not know that.
    Q. Did you know Mr. Harlow was a scientist there?
    A. No, sir, I did not.
    Q. You're familiar with the Medical College of Virginia; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Consider that a good institution?
    A. Excellent.
    Q. Okay. Duke University, you're certainly familiar with that; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Consider that an excellent institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Liggett & Myers is another company; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. That was one of the tobacco manufacturers at that time; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you see that the two individuals visited there were Dr. Darkis
and Dr. Bates?
    *2 A. Yes.
    Q. Do you know that they are respectively the head of R&D and a senior
scientist?
    A. I did not know that.
    Q. You've reviewed this document before; haven't you, sir?
    A. I have, but they weren't identified as you are identifying them now.
    Q. Okay. Counsel didn't identify them for you?
    A. No. And I didn't ask for it.
    Q. Your own counsel didn't identify them?
    A. No.
    This document is from 1958. It really has little bearing on today.
    Q. We'll see if that's true, sir. The next --
    MR. WEBER: Object to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Objection sustained.
    Q. The next company visited was Philip Morris; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. You know that company; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. They're a defendant here today; are they not?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. American is a defendant here today; are they not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Liggett is a defendant here today; are they not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Did you know who Dr. -- or Mr. Seligman or Mr. O'Keefe were?
    A. I've seen Mr. Seligman's name on -- on documents. I can't recall
where.
    Q. Okay.
    A. I don't know the name O'Keefe.
    Q. Do you know if Mr. Seligman was at one point in time the head of
research and development at Philip Morris?
    A. I don't know that.
    Q. You know the organization A. D. Little, Inc.?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And what is A. D. Little, Inc., sir?
    A. Arthur Little is a research company. I'm not totally familiar with
it, but I know generally what they do.
    Q. Respected research organization?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Now the next notation is TIRC. That's the CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. You know who Mr. Hoyt was?
    A. Mr. Hoyt was the president of the TIRC. Or I think at that time they
referred to him as director.
    Q. Director of TIRC; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And Mr. Carl Thomson, he was with Hill & Knowlton; correct?
    A. It is so noted.
    Q. The next institution is Roswell Park Memorial Institute in New York?
    A. Roswell Park.
    Q. Roswell Park.
    A. Yes.
    Q. You're familiar with that institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Respected?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. The next is Yale University; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Respected institution?
    A. Yes, indeed.
    Q. Next institution is Biological Research Institute, Inc. in
Cambridge, Massachusetts?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Familiar with that; are you not, sir?
    A. Historically, yes.
    Q. It was a respected institution; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Dr. Homburger was respected?
    A. Not universally.
    Q. Not universally.
    A. No.
    Q. How many people are respected universally?
    A. A lot.
    Q. A lot? Okay.
    The next institution is Roscoe Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor. Do you
see that?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And that was a respected institution at that time?
    A. Yes, indeed.
    Q. And the next is the Industrial Technical Committee of TIRC in
Richmond; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And there we see Mr. Hanmer's name; correct?
    *3 A. Correct.
    Q. And he's down as chairman; correct?
    A. It's so noted.
    Q. And that's the same Mr. Harriman that's up there -- or Hanmer,
excuse me, that's noted next to The American Tobacco Company; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. So he was chairman of the Industrial Technical Committee of
TIRC at that time; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And as we all know, TIRC is the forerunner to CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And Dr. Hockett, who is Dr. Hockett?
    A. Dr. Hockett was one of the scientific directors, associate
scientific director of TIRC.
    Q. And then the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Respected institution?
    A. Certainly.
    Q. Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Respected medical institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. New York University of New York; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. That's another respected institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And then we have Dr. Little from the TIRC in New York, and was he
chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board?
    A. He was.
    Q. Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And Dr. Wynder and Dr. Spranger; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Sloan-Kettering, respected institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And TIRC from New York again, and that's the Scientific Advisory
Board; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And finally in Montreal a Dr. Wright from the University of Toronto;
correct?
    A. Right.
    Q. And the University of Toronto is a respected institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now sir, can you direct your attention to the next page. Now have
you read this document before?
    A. Yes, I have.
    Q. Talked to your lawyers about it?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Reviewed this in preparation for your testimony?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Reviewed it before your deposition was taken?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now one of the questions that the individuals from England were
seeking information on was the extent to which it is accepted that
cigarette smoke causes lung cancer; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And another question that was being addressed at that time, in
number six, is the attitude of the tobacco industry in the United States
and Canada to biological research; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And "biological research," how would you define that, doctor?
    A. Well I don't know it bears any definition. "Biological research"
simply means investigation of biological events, biomedical, basic
biological.
    Q. Well isn't it --
    A. A whole array of --
    Q. Isn't it --
    A. -- of science.
    Q. Is biological research research involving animals?
    A. Oh, animals, human beings, bacteria, viruses.
    Q. Living organisms.
    A. Any -- any living thing.
    Q. Okay. Can we agree on that definition, it's research involving
living organisms?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now if you direct your attention to the first full paragraph under
"'CAUSATION' OF LUNG CANCER," do you see that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. It states as follows: "With one exception (H.S.N. Greene)" --
    *4 And he was from Yale; was he not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- "the individuals whom we met believed that smoking causes lung
cancer if by 'causation' we mean any chain of events which leads finally to
lung cancer and which involves smoking as an indispensable link." Do you
see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now, those individuals whom they met with included all of the
individuals on the preceding page; correct?
    A. I assume that, yes.
    Q. And that involved people from American Tobacco; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. It involved people from Philip Morris; correct?
    A. It is so stated.
    Q. It involved people from Liggett & Myers; correct?
    A. They are listed.
    Q. It involved the CTR personnel who are listed; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Involved Dr. Little; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. It involved Dr. Hockett; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. It involved Mr. Hoyt; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. It involved Mr. Thompson from Hill & Knowlton; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. It involved the Scientific Advisory Board of CTR; correct?
    A. Apparently.
    Q. And all of those people believed that lung smoking causes cancer if
by causation they mean any chain of events which leads finally to lung
cancer and which involves smoking as an indispensable link; correct?
    A. No. The statement is that they all believe that, but that is the
interpretation of the author of this document, and in fact later in this
document it's perfectly clear that this was not a universal belief.
    Q. Sir, --
    A. There was a suspicion.
    Q. -- is that what's reported right there in that paragraph?
    A. The report is here and I acknowledged what you have read. What I'm
unable to do is to put myself into this man's mind at that time. And as I
read further in the document, it is clear that he continues to raise
questions about, quote, causation, which is almost universally in quotes.
    Q. Well we'll get to further in the document.
    Now in the second paragraph, does it -- is it also reported that "There
is no support for the view that