THE LOEWEN GROUP, INC. and RAYMOND L. LOEWEN, v. THE ...

The Interview Summaries. The interview summaries, too, must be seen for what they are:
the work of advocates marshaling arguments, not social scientists conducting a study. See
Vidmar Statement at 16-17. While Mr. Corlew surely cannot be faulted for failing to observe
methodological rules that would govern a social scientist, the interview summaries, as a result,
are neither balanced nor even-handed.
For example, Mr. Corlew has acknowledged that, in conducting the interviews, he
informed the jurors he was "inquiring on Loewen’s behalf." See Corlew Statement at 2
(footnote) ("I would be stunned if any of the jurors did not understand, based on our disclosures,
who 'the true sponsor of the inquiries' was"). As Professor Vidmar has explained, revealing
Loewen as the interview sponsor "would tend to result in answers tilted more favorably to
Loewen." See Vidmar Statement at 17; see also Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 238
36 (...continued)
that the jury was swayed by the outcome of the O.J. Simpson trial (see, e.g., Joint Reply at 30),
but the Corlew Report notes that "[t]he O.J. Simpson verdict was never mentioned in post-trial
interviews . . . ." See U.S. App. at 1134. Claimants also have argued that the jury was
dominated by its "predominantly black" members (see, e.g., Joint Reply at 34, 108), but the
Corlew Report notes that three of the four "strong personalities" on the jury were white (and that
two of these white jurors joined the verdict). See U.S. App. at 1127, 1134. Indeed, claimants
fail to mention that the jury – as originally picked and impaneled – included an equal number of
white and black members. See U.S. App. at 1135. Two white jurors were excused for illness
early in the trial and replaced by African-American alternates. See id.
34