[ad_1]
Judge Dan Polster of the US District Court, hearing the case in Cleveland, asked why the lawyers of seven of the 22 defendants had waited more than 18 months to question his impartiality on the basis of comments that He had held during hearings, interviews with the media and public forums.
The historic trial is expected to begin next month. It brings together nearly 2,000 cases involving cities, counties, communities and tribal lands, accusing opioid officials of being at the root of the epidemic.
"The undersigned are confident that the imminent trial of the first case, as well as the ongoing negotiations for a settlement – not only on the trial, but on a comprehensive resolution – will continue to bring their fruit, "wrote Polster in his decision. .
"And the undersigned is convinced that no reasonable person can legitimately question my impartiality."
The petition filed by the defendants earlier this month indicated that Polster had pushed the companies to settle and that his public comments showed bias and prejudice.
The defendants claimed that the judge had participated in at least seven media interviews, including one in which he had let a journalist follow him for a day and made other public comments on the case. They argued that the judge "has expressed a strong personal conviction that his role is to persuade the parties to reach a settlement that will solve the current opioid crisis, not just solve the legal problems raised by the cases".
Polster "prejudged the responsibility of all the defendants for" the opioid crisis "" and "foresaw the outcome of the process as giving" some money to the government agencies for treatment, "" says the motion.
"Since we lose more than 50,000 of our citizens each year, about 150 Americans will die today, even today, while we are meeting," Polster said at one point.
Polster considers that the lawsuit is a sign likely to influence the resolution of the other lawsuits. He did not have enough time for another judge to prepare for a case that he was almost two years old, he said. The trial should be postponed.
Polster wrote that he had "simultaneously and vigorously" pursued the settlement by both the lawsuit and the settlement.
The federal judge said that he had taken care to assign responsibility for the crisis to all parties, including the accused, the plaintiffs, the federal government, the medical profession and even drug users.
"All of these groups are to some extent responsible for creating the opioid crisis, and all those who have the power must now take charge of solving the crisis," he wrote.
"There are few or no Ohio Indians who do not have family members, friends, relatives or friends. of a friend's child who has not been touched, "wrote Polster.
"I have made this observation several times, partly to emphasize the importance of resolving this dispute for all of our citizens (not just the parties themselves), and to reflect how much it can to be difficult to choose a jury. "
[ad_2]
Source link