Texas jury delivered a professional verdict in Vioxx case

Derrick Chizer, one of the jurors in the Ernst vs. Merck trial related to Vioxx, is quoted as saying that the jury wanted to send Merck and the drug industry a message: "Stop doing the minimum to put your drug on the market." No wonder they came up with the highest number that they could - $253 million in damages to Carol Ernst (though the actual amount she will get will be only $26 million under Texas law).

David Webb, another juror, said he went into deliberations supporting Carol Ernst, "but I wanted to give the defendants a chance. We just really didn't find anything that helped them."

"They needed to be held accountable for putting a drug out there that shouldn't be out there," said Stacy Smith, a 21-year-old child care provider who stood with the majority in the 10-2 vote in favor of Ms. Ernst.

"I want them to listen," said Marsha Robbins, a 53-year-old homemaker who was the presiding juror and the oldest of the panel.

It seems that these are very intelligent remarks from jurors. It is important to know that many jurors were ridiculed earlier by business-friendly publications who speculated that jurors who are poorly educated and live in a rural may not be able to appreciate the complexity of drug research and medical issues involved in making a decision.

The statements made by the jurors and the manner in which the deliberations were conducted clearly proved these people wrong. It is now obvious that these jurors have set a very high standard for other jurors in upcoming trials in New Jersey and New Orleans.