Philly judge stops J&J attempt to bar Inquirer reporter from courtroom
A Philly judge thwarted the attempt by attorneys for Johnson & Johnson to bar an Inquirer reporter from a Common Pleas courtroom during jury selection for a trial on Risperdal.
Philly judge stops J&J attempt to bar Inquirer reporter from courtroom
David Sell
A Philadelphia judge thwarted an attempt by Johnson & Johnson attorneys to prevent an Inquirer reporter from entering a courtroom during jury selection Thursday for a Risperdal trial scheduled to start Monday.
Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas is the venue for dozens of lawsuits involving Risperdal, the antipsychotic drug made by J&J's Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary. The trial in question is over a lawsuit filed by the family of a 17-year-old boy, who was prescribed Risperdal when he was only five years old. He began growing breasts when he was 12.
J&J, which made $4.7 billion from antipsychotic drugs in 2007 alone, has hundreds of individual lawsuits pending over Risperdal, with allegations of harm to patients. There are also several state cases and a federal investigation over allegations of inappropriate marketing through taxpayer-funded Medicaid plans.
On Thursday morning, jury selection began under the supervision of Common Pleas Judge Mark Bernstein. (Other Common Pleas judges have handled other pieces of these cases. Indeed, later on Thursday, Judge Arnold New ruled that J&J CEO Alex Gorsky does not have to testify in the case. The Inquirer story on that is here.)
Anyway, with jury selection under way, I walked through the open door into the courtroom and sat in a chair against the back wall.
I was at least one row, perhaps two, beyond the group of about 40 prospective jurors, who were listening to questions from one of the pharmaceutical company's attorneys.
I served on a jury and, knowing the rules, I had no plans to speak to them. But there are provisions for separating jurors from others in the courtroom.
Seated at a table, J&J's lead attorney Kenneth Murphy of Drinker, Biddle motioned to a court officer and then toward me.
Murphy knows I am a reporter.
The court officer, whom I had never met, walked over and motioned for me to step into the hall way.
In a very polite and professional manner, the court officer asked who I was. I told him my name and that I am a reporter with the Philadelphia Inquirer. He already knew and understood, but I reminded him anyway, that reporters are allowed in courtrooms during the main part of jury selection. He asked that I wait in the hall while he spoke to the judge. The door to the courtroom was still open, but I remained in the hall as requested.
A few moments later, the proceedings stopped.
All the attorneys exited the courtroom and moved to an office down the hall for a meeting with Bernstein.
A few minutes later, they all returned to the courtroom.
A few moments after that, the court officer waved me in and I sat in the mostly empty jury box to watch the proceedings. The others in the box were family members of the plaintiff, so they were separated from prospective jurors, as per the law.
And so the public portion of the questioning continued, with a J&J attorney asking jurors about preconceived views of prescribing medicine for children.
Later in the day, when I called to ask if his side objected to my presence, plaintiff's attorney Brian McCormick said no. I called and emailed Murphy to get his thoughts on the matter, but did not hear back from him.
For those curious, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 19, 2010, in a 7-2 opinion that denying public access to jury selection during a trial was a violation of the Sixth and First Amendments to the Constitution. The case was Presley v. Georgia and a link to the opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court website is here.
David Sell,I hope the Judge will reconsider,your reporting on big pharma developments is invaluable.Johnson and Johnson are the 'baby care people' and their marketing of Risperdal and other products must be above reproach.
I will be following this case with interest.-Daniel Haszard
Interesting. Thanks for the link to the Supreme Court case. No surprise that Scalia dissented to the Supreme Court's opinion to allow reporters to attend jury selection.— Wednesday- DannyHaszard -- My hat's off to you for your thoughtful comment and careful interest in an important case - I do think that may have missed the outcome of the J&J's request that Sell be barred from the courtroom - The article states that after a meeting with all counsel the Judge instructed the court officer to permit Sell to come into, and to remain in, the courtroom.— Hector
- and this news worthy?????— Chemist1524
- Do you work for J&J? — bobinjersey
- Will you be voting this year? Sorry-did you ever vote? Never mind- no need for you to vote. I imagine you really are not too interested in that kind of thing. I imagine you have more exciting things to do. Share with us. — 9Athena
- I love people who voluntarily read a story and then freak out because it is not "news worthy" I hate when I am FORCED to read a story that I don't have any interest in.— Oasis4312
- Thank you, Oasis.
Chemist, of course it's newsworthy...don't you get it??? Reread the last section of the article.— Tasha - These days, it's newsworthy because the reporter actually fought back instead of slinking away. I applaud this!— Susie from Philly
- Chemist would rather hear about snookie and the jersey shore..I'm sure he feels that is newsworthy— Drewmcc
- Im not sure how safe this is with the phillys culture today.. The recedivisim is high and witness intimdation is rampant..— noncents
- Excellent story, and choice of story to run here. Can't imagine why the J&J lawyer would object, and good for the judge who quashed that. Secret trials, and with few exceptions, parts of trials, are a really bad idea. Happens all the time in China and in a lot of other countries where politics and corruption rule. Be glad you live here, not there. Your freedoms depend on a diligent free press (free from contraints, but fairly paid), with reporters, editors and publishers willing to assert and enforce those rights. If you don't see stories like this, you don't know how protecting freedom actually works.— Jay375
- Thank you for your service, David Sell, and for telling these important stories.— IndustryInsider
- An example of Big Pharm's disdain for people knowing truth. Any attorney who would try to bar the Media from an open Courtroom is stupid and a syncophant to his/her client. The law is clear, and any knowledgeable attorney should advise his/her client what it is, and to back off any request to bar a reporter.— lport
- Adolor
- Almac
- AmerisourceBergen
- AstraZeneca
- Auxilium
- Bayer
- Celgene
- Cephalon
- Endo
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Johnson & Johnson
- Kensey Nash
- Lannett
- Merck
- Pfizer
- Roche
- Sanofi-aventis
- Shire
- Stryker
- Synthes
- Teva
- ViroPharma
- West
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
- Clinical Trials
- Food and Drug Administration
- Office of Inspector General, Health and Human Services
- OIG Most-wanted list of fugitives
- Securities and Exchange Commission/Edgar filings
- U.S. Attorney's Office/Eastern Pennsylvania, health-care fraud
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- BIO
- Jersey Association of Medical Equipment Services
- Pennsylvania Association of Medical Suppliers
- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
- Science Center
- American Health Lawyers Association
- Drug and Device Law
- Orange Book blog
- Taxpayers Against Fraud
- Bio Century
- Bio Space
- Cafe Pharma
- Financial Times
- In The Pipeline
- Monday Morning
- New York Times/Prescriptions
- Pharma Live
- Pharma Marketing
- Pharmalot
- The Placebo Effect
- Wall Street Journal/Health blog
