Jury Hung in First Federal Vioxx Trial

[kpete]

Judge declares mistrial in Vioxx case 10 minutes ago



Federal court in Texas was hearing case brought over Merck drug. Details to follow..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051212/ts_nm/vioxx_dc

UPDATE:
Jury Hung in First Federal Vioxx Trial By PAM EASTON and KRISTEN HAYS, Associated Press Writers
2 minutes ago

HOUSTON - A judge declared a mistrial Monday in the first federal lawsuit over the once-popular painkiller Vioxx.

Merck & Co. emerged from its third Vioxx trial Monday with a hung jury when the panel failed, in about 18 hours of deliberations over three days, to side with the drug maker or the widow of a 53-year-old Florida man who died after taking Vioxx for about a month.

The jury resumed what was to be its fourth day of deliberations Monday, but within about 20 minutes, U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon called the jurors in and reminded them they had agreed to reach a verdict in a "reasonable time."

"It has now been a reasonable time. We cannot get a verdict," Fallon said, declaring a mistrial. Federal litigation requires a unanimous verdict.

The panel was at odds over whether Merck was liable in Richard "Dicky" Irvin's 2001 death and whether the company failed to issue safety warnings that the drug could have serious cardiovascular repurcussions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_bi_ge/vioxx_federal_trial;_ylt=Agw79P4hAlAvUWoyLGUjoBis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

[1932]

1. Is this because they were relying on the bad study?

Last week NPR reported on the bad study and said that the TX jury had no idea it existed. I thought that some of them must listen to NPR and will know about it soon enough.

A possiblity here, of course, is that Merck benefits from the mistrial because they might have been losing with this jury, the bad study notwithstanding.

[johnnyburma]

4. I missed out on reports of the bad study

Have you got a link? Thanks in advance.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Mistrial declared because the evidence didn't

stand up in court.

[1932]

3. Looks like it was because not every juror was convinced that a preponder-

ance of the evidence supported the plaintiff's claim. Some were convinced and some weren't. But you need everyone to be convinced in Federal Court, which is the most expensive place to try a case. So, the deep pockets benefit from this going another round.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

6. The next round will be worse for Merck

It's been pointed out above that after the jury retired there was news that the study Merck was relying on was seriously flawed and fraudulent. In other words, they just lost the linchpin of their defense.

In addition, most of the high-cost items to prepare the case for trial can be used again -- pretrial discovery is where the real expenses come from, the trial itself is relatively inexpensive.

I look for a settlement very soon.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. I assume the penalties will be stiff.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Uh, I was making a joke...

[raysr]

5. Damn porn stars