WHY I OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY

Missouri man exonerated in 3 killings, free after 4 decades

By HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH and MARGARET STAFFORD

Kevin Strickland, 62, managed a smile while talking to the media after his release from prison, Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2021, in Cameron, Mo. Strickland, who was jailed for more than 40 years for three murders, was released from prison Tuesday after a judge ruled that he was wrongfully convicted in 1979. (Rich Sugg/The Kansas City Star via AP)

A Kansas City man who was jailed for more than 40 years for three murders was released from prison Tuesday after a judge ruled that he was wrongfully convicted in 1979.

Kevin Strickland, 62, has always maintained that he was home watching television and had nothing to do with the killings, which happened when he was 18 years old. He learned of the decision when the news scrolled across the television screen as he was watching a soap opera. He said inmates began screaming.

“I’m not necessarily angry. It’s a lot. I think I’ve created emotions that you all don’t know about just yet,” he told reporters as he left the Western Missouri Correctional Center in Cameron. “Joy, sorrow, fear. I am trying to figure out how to put them together.”

He said he would like to get involved in efforts to “keep this from happening to someone else,” saying the criminal justice system “needs to be torn down and redone.”

Judge James Welsh, a retired Missouri Court of Appeals judge, ruled after a three-day evidentiary hearing requested by a Jackson County prosecutor who said evidence used to convict Strickland had since been recanted or disproven.

Welsh wrote in his judgement that “clear and convincing evidence” was presented that “undermines the Court’s confidence in the judgement of conviction.” He noted that no physical evidence linked Strickland to the crime scene and that a key witness recanted before her death.

“Under these unique circumstances, the Court’s confidence in Strickland’s convictions is so undermined that it cannot stand, and the judgment of conviction must be set aside,” Welsh wrote in ordering Strickland’s immediate release.

Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker, who pushed for his freedom, moved quickly to dismiss the criminal charges against him so he could be released.

“To say we’re extremely pleased and grateful is an understatement,” she said in a statement. “This brings justice — finally — to a man who has tragically suffered so so greatly as a result of this wrongful conviction.”

But Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, said Strickland was guilty and had fought to keep him incarcerated.

“In this case, we defended the rule of law and the decision that a jury of Mr. Strickland’s peers made after hearing all of the facts in the case,” Schmitt spokesman Chris Nuelle said in a brief statement. “The Court has spoken, no further action will be taken in this matter.”

Gov. Mike Parson, who declined Strickland’s clemency requests, tweeted simply that: “The Court has made its decision, we respect the decision, and the Department of Corrections will proceed with Mr. Strickland’s release immediately.”

Strickland was convicted in the deaths of Larry Ingram, 21; John Walker, 20; and Sherrie Black, 22, at a home in Kansas City.

The evidentiary hearing focused largely on testimony from Cynthia Douglas, the only person to survive the April 25, 1978, shootings. She initially identified Strickland as one of four men who shot the victims and testified to that during his two trials.

Welsh wrote that she had doubts soon after the conviction but initially was “hesitant to act because she feared she could face perjury charges if she were to publicly recant statements previously made under oath.”

She later said she was pressured by police to choose Strickland and tried for years to alert political and legal experts to help her prove she had identified the wrong man, according to testimony during the hearing from her family, friends and a co-worker. Douglas died in 2015.

During the hearing, attorneys for the Missouri Attorney General’s office argued that Strickland’s advocates had not provided a paper trail that proved Douglas tried to recant her identification of Strickland, saying the theory was based on “hearsay, upon hearsay, upon hearsay,”

The judge also noted that two other men convicted in the killings later insisted Strickland wasn’t involved. They named two other suspects who were never charged.

During his testimony, Strickland denied suggestions that he offered Douglas $300 to “keep her mouth shut,” and said he had never visited the house where the murders occurred before they happened.

Strickland is Black, and his first trial ended in a hung jury when the only Black juror, a woman, held out for acquittal. After his second trial in 1979, he was convicted by an all-white jury of one count of capital murder and two counts of second-degree murder.

In May, Peters Baker announced that a review of the case led her to believe that Strickland was innocent.

In June, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear Strickland’s petition.

In August, Peters Baker used a new state law to seek the evidentiary hearing in Jackson County, where Strickland was convicted. The law allows local prosecutors to challenge convictions if they believe the defendant did not commit the crime. It was the first time — and so far the only time — that a prosecutor has used the law to fight a previous conviction.

“Even when the prosecutor is on your side, it took months and months for Mr. Strickland to come home and he still had to come home to a system that will not provide him any compensation for the 43 years he lost,” said Tricia Rojo Bushnell, executive director of the Midwest Innocence Project, who stood by Strickland’s side as he was released.

The state only allows wrongful imprisonment payments to people exonerated through DNA evidence, so Strickland doesn’t qualify.

“That is not justice,” she said. “I think we are hopeful that folks are paying so much attention and really asking the question of ‘What should our system of justice look like?’”

___

Hollingsworth reported from Mission, Kansas, and Stafford from Liberty, Missouri.

Board: Georgia colleges will not change building names linked to White supremacy


UGA's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication was one of 75 buildings and colleges recommended to have its name change as its namesake, journalist Henry W. Grady, promoted ideas of White supremacy. Photo courtesy of Ugastudent/Wikimedia Commons

Nov. 23 (UPI) -- The board of regents for the University System of Georgia said it will not change the names of more than 70 of its buildings that bear those of figures who supported White supremacy, slavery and oppression.

The regents made their decision after reviewing the report from the Naming Advisory Group that recommended changing the names of 75 buildings and colleges to ensure "no building included on the system's campuses holds the name of someone who does not reflect the USG published standards."

The group was formed in June of last year to study the appropriateness of the names on campus and college buildings, and made its recommendation from nearly 900 named for individuals, groups of individuals, companies or landmarks.

In a statement Monday, the regents said they are "grateful" for the group's work but they will not be adopting any of its recommendations

"The purpose of history is to instruct. History can teach us important lessons, lessons that if understood and applied make Georgia and its people stronger," the Board of Regents said. "The board, therefore, will not pursue name changes on USG buildings and colleges as recommended."

The regents described the intent of the group as to better understand the names that mark its buildings while recognizing "there would likely be a number of individuals who engaged in behaviors or held beliefs that do not reflect or represent our values today."

"Understanding the history of names fulfills a knowledge mission that has guided USG for the past 90 years," they said.

The decision was met with swift condemnation from groups that sought to have the names changed, including #RenameGrady, which petitioned for journalist Henry Grady's name to be removed from UGA's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication over his espousal of White supremacy.

The group said the board's decision is not surprising and demonstrates to them "the board's support for racism and the upholding of White supremacy."

"This failure signals a willful ignorance of the history of people of color and a disregard for the physical, emotional and mental well-being of BIPOC students who have to walk the halls of these institutions every day," it said in a statement, referring to Black, Indigenous and people of color. "#RenameGrady condemns this hostile decision and urges the regents to reconsider."

DEATH TO TYRANTS
Chun Doo-hwan, ex-South Korean dictator, dies at 90


Chun Doo-hwan, the former strongman president of South Korea who oversaw the brutal Gwangju massacre of pro-democracy activists in 1980, died Tuesday at 90 years old. File photo by Yonhap


SEOUL, Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan, a general who seized power in a 1979 military coup and brutally suppressed a pro-democracy uprising in the city of Gwangju a year later, died Tuesday at his home in Seoul. He was 90 years old.

Chun collapsed in his home on Tuesday morning, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported. He had been battling chronic ailments and was receiving treatment for multiple myeloma, a type of bone cancer, Yonhap said

The military commander rose to power in the wake of the 1979 assassination of President Park Chung-hee, the dictator who had ruled South Korea for 18 years.

In May 1980, Chun sent tanks, helicopters and troops to crush a pro-democracy student uprising in the southern city of Gwangju, an event that remains one of the most infamous and painful in modern Korean history. The massacre at Gwangju officially left some 200 dead, but accounts by witnesses, investigators and victims' families put the toll several times higher.

The strongman stayed in power until 1988, when he stepped down after enormous public pressure led to the country's first democratic elections. Chun's chosen successor, coup co-conspirator Roh Tae-woo, won the December 1987 vote by a plurality after candidates Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung -- both future presidents -- split the opposition ballots.

In 1996, Chun and his ally Roh were convicted on charges of treason and mutiny stemming from the coup and Gwangju massacre. Chun received a commuted death sentence but was pardoned the next year by President Kim Young-sam in an effort to bring the country together.

Chun was born in the rural southeastern county of Hapcheon on Jan. 23, 1931, and rose through the ranks of the South Korean military in the years after the 1950-53 Korean War. He took part in the 1961 coup by Park Chung-hee as an army captain and eventually became a major general in 1977.

Some credit Chun for the continued growth of the Korean economy in the 1980s and Seoul's successful hosting of the Summer Olympics in 1988, but his legacy is more widely considered one of ignominy, corruption and unapologetic brutality.

Chun never expressed remorse for his role in the Gwangju massacre and always denied direct responsibility. He also claimed that North Korean provocateurs were behind the uprising, a conspiracy theory that continues to swirl around some right-wing circles.

South Korea's presidential Blue House expressed regret on Tuesday that Chun died without an apology and said that it had no plans to send flowers or official condolenc

"We regret that [Chun] did not reveal the truth of history and that there was no sincere apology," Park Kyung-mee, spokeswoman for President Moon Jae-in, told reporters.

The Blue House offered prayers for the deceased and words of sympathy to the bereaved family, Park said.

Chun was convicted of libel last year for defaming a priest who had testified to seeing helicopters shooting at civilians during the massacre, calling him a "liar" and "Satan" in a 2017 memoir. He received an eight-month suspended sentence.

In 1996, the ex-president was also convicted on charges of massive bribery while in office and ordered to repay the government some $185 million. He claimed to not have the assets to pay the fine, famously sparking outrage in 2003 by testifying that he only had around $250 in his bank account.

Chun's death comes less than a month after that of his ally and successor Roh Tae-woo, who passed away on Oct. 23 at the age of 88.

REST IN POWER

Malikah Shabazz, daughter of Malcolm X, found dead in her NYC home


Malikah Shabazz and her twin sister were born in 1965 after their father's death. 

File Photo courtesy Library of Congress

Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Malikah Shabazz, the daughter of Black civil rights leader Malcolm X, has been found dead in her New York City home, authorities said.

The body of Shabazz, 56, was found in her Brooklyn home on Monday by her daughter, the New York Police Department said.

Authorities said her death does not appear to be suspicious.

Malcolm X's wife Betty Shabazz was pregnant with Malikah and her twin sister Malaak when the civil rights icon was gunned down at a speaking event in New York City in 1965.

Malikah Shabazz, second from left, is seen with her sisters and Betty Shabazz, the widow of civil rights icon Malcolm X, at Riverside Church in New York City on June 29, 1997.

 File Photo by Roger Celestin/UPI

"I'm deeply saddened by the death of [Malikah Shabazz]," Bernice King, the daughter of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. tweeted on Tuesday. "My heart goes out to her family, the descendants of Dr. Betty Shabazz and Malcolm X."

Shabazz's death came just days after her father's assassination was in the news. Two men who'd been convicted in his killing were exonerated after a two-year re-investigation of the crime.

Betty Shabazz, who had six children with Malcolm X, died in 1997.

MANDATES SHOULD BE MANDATORY
Biden asks appeals court to reinstate workplace vaccine mandate

Protester Kathy Guerra holds a sign reading "No Mandate" as Boeing workers stand across the street from executive offices, objecting to the company rule of a December 8 vaccination mandate for employees in St. Louis on October 20.

 File Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 23 (UPI) -- President Joe Biden on Tuesday asked a federal appeals court to revive his administration's workplace vaccine mandate, which was blocked earlier this month.

Biden announced in September that the administration was rolling out the rule requiring all private employers with 100 or more employees to mandate COVID-19 vaccines or weekly testing for the virus. Its formal rollout sparked immediate legal challenges from states, employers, labor unions and religious groups.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit temporarily halted the order, calling it "fatally flawed."

Since that ruling, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been unable to enforce the requirement.

The decision now rests with the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which the administration has asked to lift the current court order blocking the mandate. The government has argued not allowing and enforcing the directive would be a "setback to public health."

A Washington, D.C. judicial panel used a lottery to decide which of the nation's 12 regional federal appeals courts would hear arguments on the case. Litigation from numerous legal challenges to the mandate was also merged into a single lawsuit.

The administration has argued the mandate is critical to boosting nationwide vaccination rates.

In their filing, government lawyers argued that delaying the vaccine mandate "would endanger many thousands of people and would likely cost many lives per day. With the reopening of workplaces and the emergence of the highly transmissible Delta variant, the threat to workers is ongoing and overwhelming."

Senators ask Joe Biden to urge WTO to open up vaccine production

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was one of nine senators who signed a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to call on the World Trade Organization to waive international intellectual property to increase vaccine production. 

Photo by Sarah Silbiger/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Nine senators sent President Joe Biden a letter urging him to call for a waiver of international intellectual property rules for vaccines at the World Trade Organization ministerial conference.

The letter, signed by former presidential candidates Elizbeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said a "meaningful waiver" would lead to an increased production of coronavirus vaccines around the world, especially in developing countries.

"By securing a waiver agreement at the WTO Ministerial, your administration can demonstrate real and impactful American global leadership," the lawmakers said in the letter, according to The Hill newspaper.

"If the Ministerial Conference cannot deliver a solution, the WTO -- and the wealthy nations blocking the waiver -- will continue to lose credibility with the developing world. We urge you to seize this opportunity to engage actively and productively at the WTO [to] deliver on your promise to defeat the pandemic."

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., was one of nine senators who signed a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to call on the World Trade Organization to waive international intellectual property to increase vaccine production. 

File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Other Democratic senators signing the letter included Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico.

The letter makes a similar plea that Human Rights Watch and other international groups made this week, asking Biden to address intellectual property rules to enhance vaccine production.

"Your leadership in securing a meaningful WTO waiver and helping to end the COVID-19 pandemic and the misery it is causing all of humanity is a moral necessity," said the Human Rights Watch letter to Biden which was signed onto by Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders and other organizations.

"It would help restore U.S. standing around the world and create a sense of relief among U.S. residents that their president was taking strong action to return normalcy to their lives."

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Italy's antitrust authority fines Apple, Amazon $230 million


Apple's new iPhone 13 series are displayed in a store. Apple plans to appeal the Italian Competition Authority's decision to fine the company. File photo | License Photo


Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Italy's antitrust authority fined Apple and Amazon $230 million on Tuesday after finding that Amazon resold Apple and Apple-owned Beats kits and blocked other resellers.

The antitrust authority said that a restrictive agreement in 2018 between the two companies resulted in lower levels of discounts available to consumers buying Apple and Beats products on Amazon's Italian site.

The agreement effectively prohibited official and unofficial resellers of Apple and Beats products from using Amazon.

Amazon was hit with a $151 million fine while Apple has been ordered to pay $77.3 million by the Italian Competition Authority.

"The restrictions of the agreement have affected the level of discounts offered by third parties on Amazon.it, decreasing their size," the authority said, according to TechCrunch.

Competition authorities in Spain and Germany have launched similar proceedings. Spain opened an investigation against Apple and Amazon in the summer, and Germany has opened proceedings examining the market power of tech giants.

Amazon told TechCrunch that it would appeal the decision, stating that it strongly disagreed with the ICA. A statement given to TechCrunch said that Italian customers could benefit from finding the latest Apple and Beats products at better deals with faster shipping. Amazon has argued that the agreement helps consumers and that sellers have other platforms to conduct business both on and offline.

Apple will also appeal, citing the integrity of products provided to its customer.

"Non-genuine products deliver an inferior experience and can often be dangerous," Apple wrote to TechCrunch. "We respect the Italian Competition Authority but believe we have done nothing wrong and plan to appeal."

RELATED EU court rejects Google's appeal, upholds $2.8 billion antitrust fine

Survey: Most Americans say suffering comes from people -- not God


Forty percent of the respondents said the news triggers their desire to help those who are suffering. Photo by kaboompics/Pixabay

Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Most Americans believe that bad things happen because of random chance, people's own actions and the way society is structured -- rather than blaming God for human suffering, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The Pew Research Center said the survey of 6,485 adults gave respondents multiple opportunities to express their views on why bad things happen -- in their own words in response to an open-ended question, and by reading through a list of possible explanations for suffering.

When asked to explain suffering, 66 percent said that the statement "sometimes bad things just happen" described their own views very well (44 percent) or somewhat well (42 percent). Twenty-two percent said the statement "suffering is mostly a consequence of people's own actions" reflected their views very well, while 49 percent said it represented their views somewhat well.

Another choice of answers was "suffering is mostly a result of the way society is structured." For that, 19 percent said it reflected their views very well, while 50 percent said it echoed their views somewhat well.

RELATED Pew survey of 17 nations give U.S. mixed reviews on culture, democracy

Another question asked what Americans feel when they hear about human suffering and respondents were permitted to answer with multiple choices.

There, 71 percent said they were thankful for the good things in their own life, while 62 percent said they felt sadness for those suffering. Forty percent of the respondents said the news triggers their desire to help those who are suffering, and 24 percent said they just need to tune out the bad news because it's too much to take. Twenty percent said they need to make changes in their own lives to avoid ending up in similar situations.

Pew said the survey, conducted Sept. 20-26, was the first of its kind in assessing "philosophical questions" about things like the meaning of life.

RELATED People who don't believe in God may get better sleep, study says

Those questions, Pew said, "take on added significance amid a global pandemic that has killed 5 million people and recent natural disasters including floods, hurricanes and wildfires."

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Jury says CVS, Walgreens, Walmart had role in opioid crisis


A federal judge could order Walgreens, CVS and Walmart each to pay billions.

 File Photo by Billie Jean Shaw/UPI


Nov. 23 (UPI) -- A federal jury on Tuesday said pharmacies at CVS, Walgreens and Walmart contributed to the influx of large quantities of pain pills in two Ohio counties, contributing to the deadly opioid crisis.

The case is considered to be a "bellwether" trial in determining how much of a role pharmacies have played in fueling the crisis. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs -- Lake and Trumbull counties -- said the pharmacies disregarded their legal duties to block suspicious orders of controlled substances such as prescription opioids.

"For decades, pharmacy chains have watched as the pills flowing out of their doors cause harm and failed to take action as required by the law," attorneys for the plaintiffs said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

"The judgment today against Walmart, Walgreens and CVS represents the overdue reckoning for their complicity in creating a public nuisance."

Two other pharmacy chains -- Giant Eagle and Rite-Aid -- settled with the counties ahead of the verdict.

The trial judge is expected to decide on a punishment during a hearing in the spring. He could order the companies to pay billions of dollars to help address the fallout from the opioid crisis. The counties said the hundreds of overdose deaths and other factors have cost each about $1 billion.

Representatives for CVSHealth and Walgreen Co. said they plan to appeal the verdict, according to CNBC.

RELATED Oklahoma Supreme Court overturns judgment against J&J in opioid case

"As plaintiffs' own experts testified, many factors have contributed to the opioid abuse issue, and solving this problem will require involvement from all stakeholders in our healthcare system and all members of our community," CVSHealth spokesman Mike DeAngelis said.

Opioids caused more than 183,000 overdose deaths in the United States between 1999 and 2015. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics released a report last week showing numbers spiked in the 12-month period ending in April 2021, with opioids causing more than 75,600 overdose deaths.

Jury holds pharmacies responsible for role in opioid crisis

CLEVELAND (AP) — CVS, Walgreens and Walmart pharmacies recklessly distributed massive amounts of pain pills in two Ohio counties, a federal jury said Tuesday in a verdict that could set the tone for U.S. city and county governments that want to hold pharmacies accountable for their roles in the opioid crisis.

Lake and Trumbull counties blamed the three chain pharmacies for not stopping the flood of pills that caused hundreds of overdose deaths and cost each of the two counties about $1 billion, said their attorney, who in court compared the pharmacies’ dispensing to a gumball machine.

How much the pharmacies must pay in damages will be decided in the spring by a federal judge.

It’s the first time pharmacy companies completed a trial to defend themselves in a drug crisis that killed a half-million Americans over the past two decades.

The counties convinced the jury that the pharmacies played an outsized role in creating a public nuisance in the way they dispensed pain medication into their communities.

“The law requires pharmacies to be diligent in dealing drugs. This case should be a wake-up call that failure will not be accepted,” said Mark Lanier, an attorney for the counties.

“The jury sounded a bell that should be heard through all pharmacies in America,” Lanier said.

Attorneys for the pharmacy chains maintained they had policies to stem the flow of pills when their pharmacists had concerns and would notify authorities about suspicious orders from doctors. They also said it was doctors who controlled how many pills were prescribed for legitimate medical needs.

CVSHealth, Walgreen Co. and Walmart Inc. said they will appeal.

Walmart said in a statement that the counties’ attorneys sued “in search of deep pockets while ignoring the real causes of the opioid crisis — such as pill mill doctors, illegal drugs, and regulators asleep at the switch — and they wrongly claimed pharmacists must second-guess doctors in a way the law never intended and many federal and state health regulators say interferes with the doctor-patient relationship.”

Walgreen spokesperson Fraser Engerman characterized the case as an unsustainable effort “to resolve the opioid crisis with an unprecedented expansion of public nuisance law.”

The company “never manufactured or marketed opioids nor did we distribute them to the ‘pill mills’ and internet pharmacies that fueled this crisis,” Engerman said in a statement.

A statement from CVS spokesperson Mike DeAngelis noted: “As plaintiffs’ own experts testified, many factors have contributed to the opioid abuse issue, and solving this problem will require involvement from all stakeholders in our health care system and all members of our community.”

Two chains — Rite Aid and Giant Eagle — already had settled lawsuits with the two Ohio counties.

Lanier said during trial that the pharmacies were attempting to blame everyone but themselves.

The opioid crisis has overwhelmed courts, social services agencies and law enforcement in Ohio’s blue-collar corner east of Cleveland, leaving behind heartbroken families and babies born to addicted mothers, Lanier told jurors.

Roughly 80 million prescription painkillers were dispensed in Trumbull County alone between 2012 and 2016 — equivalent to 400 for every resident. In Lake County, some 61 million pills were distributed during that period.

The rise in physicians prescribing pain medications such as oxycodone and hydrocodone came as medical groups began recognizing that patients have the right to be treated for pain, Kaspar Stoffelmayr, an attorney for Walgreens, said at the opening of the trial.

The problem, he said, was “pharmaceutical manufacturers tricked doctors into writing way too many pills.”

The counties said pharmacies should be the last line of defense to prevent the pills from getting into the wrong hands.

They didn’t hire enough pharmacists and technicians or train them to stop that from happening and failed to implement systems that could flag suspicious orders, Lanier said.

The committee of lawyers for the local governments suing the drug industry in federal courts called Tuesday’s verdict “a milestone victory” and “overdue reckoning.”

“For decades, pharmacy chains have watched as the pills flowing out of their doors cause harm and failed to take action as required by law,” the committee said in a statement. “Instead, these companies responded by opening up more locations, flooding communities with pills, and facilitating the flow of opioids into an illegal, secondary market.”

The trial before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland was part of a broader constellation of about 3,000 federal opioid lawsuits consolidated under the judge’s supervision. Other cases are moving ahead in state courts.

Kevin Roy, chief public policy officer at Shatterproof, an organization that advocates for solutions to addiction, said the verdict could lead pharmacies to follow the path of major distribution companies and some drugmakers that have reached nationwide settlements of opioid cases worth billions. So far, no pharmacy has reached a nationwide settlement.

“It’s a signal that the public, at least in select places, feels that there’s been exposure and needs to be remedied,” Roy said.

The government claims against drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies hinge on state and local public nuisance laws.

Roy noted that courts haven’t been consistent on whether those laws apply to such cases. “There’s been a variety of different decisions lately that should give us reason to be cautious about what this really means in the grand scheme,” he said.

Two recent rulings went against the theory. More cases are heading toward rulings.

Trials against drugmakers in New York and distribution companies in Washington state are underway. A trial of claims against distribution companies in West Virginia wrapped up, but the judge hasn’t given a verdict.

Earlier in November, a California judge ruled in favor of top drug manufacturers in a lawsuit with three counties and the city of Oakland. The judge said the governments hadn’t proven that the pharmaceutical companies used deceptive marketing to increase unnecessary opioid prescriptions and create a public nuisance.

Also this month, Oklahoma’s supreme court overturned a 2019 judgment for $465 million in a suit brought by the state against drugmaker Johnson & Johnson.

Other lawsuits have resulted in big settlements or proposed settlements before trials were completed.

The jury’s decision in Cleveland had little effect on the stock of CVS, Walgreens and Walmart, which all closed higher Tuesday on Wall Street.

___

Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

US jury awards $25m in damages over Unite the Right rally

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Image caption,

Richard Spencer, who coined the term "alt-right", was among the defendants

A US jury has awarded $25m (£19m) in damages against the organisers of a deadly far-right rally in August 2017.

The defendants were found liable in four out of six counts over the bloodshed at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The civil lawsuit was filed by nine people who suffered physical or emotional injuries in the rally.

A woman was killed and dozens were hurt after an avowed neo-Nazi drove a car into counter-protesters.

In court, the jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages against 12 defendants, and $1m against five white supremacist organisations. Punitive damages are awarded at a court's discretion to punish a defendant for conduct judged to be especially harmful.

A total of $12m in punitive damages was also imposed against the driver of the car in the fatal incident.

The jury of 11 deliberated for over three days following nearly a month of testimony at the trial in Charlottesville.

The two federal conspiracy charges that jurors could not agree on alleged that the defendants had plotted to commit racially motivated violence.

Roberta Kaplan, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said they plan to refile the lawsuit so a new jury can decide on those two charges.

The legal action alleged that the defendants "brought with them to Charlottesville the imagery of the Holocaust, of slavery, of Jim Crow and of fascism".

"They also brought with them semi-automatic weapons, pistols, mace, rods, armour, shields and torches," the lawsuit said.

The statue of General Robert E Lee was towed away from Market Street Park, Charlottesville

The defendants include several prominent figures in America's white nationalist and far-right sphere.

Among those found liable in the case were Jason Kessler, the rally's main organiser, and Richard Spencer, who came up with the term "alt-right" and spoke at the event.

Another defendant, Christopher Cantwell, became famous as "the crying Nazi" after an emotional YouTube video he posted once the rally went viral.

The lawsuit largely rested on an 1871 law passed after the US Civil War to protect black Americans, following their emancipation from slavery, from the Ku Klux Klan.

• US white supremacists face a legal reckoning

It allows private citizens to sue others believed to have committed civil rights violations - with the condition that the plaintiffs must prove that they conspired to do so.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also collected more than 5.3 terabytes of data to help them make their case, including social media posts and chat exchanges.

The rally began as a protest against the removal of a Confederate statue.

Then-President Donald Trump came under fire after saying afterwards that there were "very fine people on both sides". In the same speech he also said neo-Nazis and white nationalists "should be condemned totally".

A counter-protester, 32-year-old Heather Heyer, was killed when James Alex Fields drove his car into a crowd. He was sentenced to life in prison in June 2019.

The civil case included testimony from survivors of the incident.

"It was a complete terror scene. It was blood everywhere," one of the plaintiffs, Marissa Blair, testified. "I was terrified."

The defendants sought to distance themselves from the violence and maintained that there was no conspiracy. They said none of them knew Fields and so they could not have predicted he would ram a vehicle into a crowd.

"None of these defendants could have foreseen what James Fields did," Mr Kessler's attorney said.

The defendants argued that their racist views were protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, and that their rhetoric before the rally was just bluster.

They also said they had acted in self-defence and that the police bore responsibility for failing to keep the two sides from fighting.

Court testimony, however, suggested that some of the organisers could have foreseen the violence.

Former extremist Samantha Froelich, for example, testified that the idea of using vehicles to target counter-protesters was discussed ahead of the event.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs have said they hope the lawsuit acts as a deterrent against further extremist rallies.

Amy Spitalnick, executive director of Integrity First for America, which backed the legal action, told the BBC in October that "a case like this can also have much broader impacts in making clear there will be very real consequences for violence extremism".