Replies

Transcript of May 5, 2008 oral argument, United States of America v. Maureen Stevens
http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/transcript/07-1074.html

SC07-1074

>> ALL RISE.
HEAR YE HEAR YE, SUPREME COURT
OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION.

DOJ -
>> I DON’T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE
TO FASHION A RULE THAT WOULD
APPLY ONLY TO A SUBSTANCE LIKE
ANTHRAX —

PANELIST -

>> WHY NOT?

>> BECAUSE ANTHRAX IS NOT THE
ONLY SUBSTANCE THAT IS DANGEROUS
ANTHRAX LIKE A LOT OF OTHER
SUBSTANCES HAS SOCIALLY
BENEFICIAL USES AND ANTHRAX IS
STUDIED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE FOR AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY STUDIED FOR THE
IMPORTANT USE OF DEVELOPING
COUNTER MEASURES TO PROTECT OUR
CITIZENS. AND IN THE EVENT TERRORISTS OR
ENEMIES MIGHT OBTAIN ANTHRAX.
LOTS OF SUBSTANCES ARE DANGEROUS
AND ANTHRAX ACTUALLY IS MUCH
LESS DANGEROUS THAN A LOT OF
SUBSTANCES STUDIED ALL OVER THE
PLACE AND THE INFLUENZA —

PANELIST -

>> WHAT CONSTRUCTIVE POSITIVE
USES WERE BEING MADE OF THE
SUBSTANCE IN THIS INSTANCE?

DOJ -
>> *** THE UNITED STATES DOES
NOT HAVE, HAS NOT FOR DECADES
HAD ANY KIND OF BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS PROGRAM, THE ONLY USES
WERE DEFENSIVE RESEARCH USES FOR
MEDICAL PURPOSES FOR THE
PROTECTION OF OUR CITIZENS AND
FEDERAL LAW STATUTES CITED IN
THE 1969 STATUTE, SPECIFICALLY
CONTEMPLATES THAT LOTS OF
ENTITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY
SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO ANTHRAX
AND A LOT OF OTHER ALSO
DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES IN ORDER TO
PERFORM BASIC SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH AND TO PERFORM RESEARCH
SPECIFICALLY TO DEVELOP COUNTER
MEASURES —

PANELIST -
>> WHY SHOULD THE INNOCENT PARTY
BE THE ONLY ONE TO CARRY THE
BURDEN?

>>
PANELIST -

>> I’M MORE INTERESTED WHAT WAS
YOUR LAB DOING WITH THE ANTHRAX.

BATTELLE -
>> OUR LAB USES ANTHRAX FOR,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, VACCINE
EFFICACY TESTING AND DO ANIMAL
CHALLENGES TO DEVELOP VACCINES
TO PREVENT PEOPLE EXPOSED FROM
ANTHRAX TO GETTING SICK AN
ANTIDOTES TO HELP PEOPLE IF THEY
ARE EXPOSED TO ANTHRAX AND IT IS
NOT ONLY ANTHRAX, IF IT IS USED
AS A TERRORIST WEAPON BUT THOSE
PEOPLE WHO WORK IN INDUSTRIES
WHERE THEY MAY BE EXPOSED TO A
SUBSTANCE, SO, THERE IS A
SOCIALLY BENEFICIAL USE AND
SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN’T BE
CHILLED IN TERMS OF LABORATORIES

DOING THAT.

YES, THEY SHOULD BE CAREFUL IN
HANDLING THE MATERIALS, AND
THOSE MATERIALS ARE ONLY HANDLED
HANDLED IN LABS THAT ARE CALLED
BIOLOGICAL LEVEL-3 LABS.
OR HIGHER.

[COMMENT: THIS IS NOT ACCURATE. ANTHRAX WAS A BL-2 AGENT IN LIQUID FORM, THE FORM IN WHICH IT VERY LIKELY WAS STOLEN.]

PANELIST TO BATTELLE:

>> LET ME ASK YOU, IF THE — THE
PERSON DISSEMINATED THIS
ANTHRAX, ACTUALLY WORKED FOR
YOUR LAB, THEN WOULD WE HAVE A
DIFFERENT — WOULD THAT
ESTABLISH THAT THE SPECIAL
RELATIONSHIP SO THAT YOU WOULD
HAVE A DUTY AND POSSIBLY BE —
>> EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE IS COVERED
BY THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP,

BATTELLE -

YES.

STEVENS -

>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I’M
HERE ON BEHALF OF MAUREEN
STEVENS AND WITH ME ARE TRIAL
COUNSEL RICHARD SCHUELLER AND
JASON WISER, ONE THING I NEED TO
CLARIFY E ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS,
THE SUGGESTION OF ANTHRAX
GENERICALLY BEING THE CAUSE AND
THAT WE JUST — THE LABORATORY
SUCH AS BATTELLE IS NOT CORRECT
WITH THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT.
WHAT WE ALLEGE IN THE COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT
THIS PARTICULAR STRAIN OF
ANTHRAX IS THE ONE WE ARE
FOCUSING ON.
THIS PARTICULAR STRAIN OF
ANTHRAX IS ONE THAT HAS BEEN
GENETICALLY TRACED BACK TO FORT
DETRICK.
NOT ONE THAT OCCURRED IN NATURE.

***
>> WE KNOW ENOUGH TO SAY IT WAS
ULTRA HAZARDOUS, IT WAS DESIGNED
TO KILL PEOPLE.
THEY KNEW IT HAD GOTTEN OUT OF
THEIR LAB.
>> DOES THE SAME THING HAPPEN
IF, FOR INSTANCE, A MILITARY
DEPOT IS STORING CLAYMORE MINES
AND — [INAUDIBLE] MINE, YOU
KNOW, COMES UP MISSING AND, YOU
KNOW, AND LATER 5,000 MILES AWAY
THE CLAYMORE MINE IS USED TO
KILL SOMEBODY?

***
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER
THING, AND THAT IS THE CONCERN
ABOUT OPENING THE FLOODGATES OF
LITIGATION AND EXTENSIVE
LIABILITY WHICH EVERY DEFENDANT
RAISES, HAS TO BE CONSIDERED
IN — TO MAKE THE GOVERNMENT
LIABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS A
PRIVATE ENTITY WAS A DECISION
MADE BY CONGRESS.
THIS COURT SHOULD NOT BE
CONCERNED WITH WHETHER A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL’S LIABILITY IMPOSED
ON THE GOVERNMENT CREATES
CONCERNS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF IT.
THAT IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO
DEAL WITH LEGISLATIVELY AS THEY
DID IN THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS
ACT, AND WE ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO
SEEK JUSTICE FOR OUR CLIENT IN
WHAT WE BELIEVE WE HAVE PROVED
IN EXISTENCE OF A DUTY.