Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

BPI v. ABC: Week Three Review

Jeremy Ludemann
/
SDPB

The defamation trial between Beef Products Incorporated and ABC continues at the Union County Courthouse in Elk Point. BPI claims almost $2 billion in damages due to ABC News reports on its lean, finely textured beef product. South Dakota Public Broadcasting’s Jeremy Ludemann reports on last week’s developments in the case.

BPI's former general counsel spent several days on the stand last week. Rich Jochum (YO-COME) worked for the Dakota Dunes-based meat company for 17 years. During direct examination, he told BPI attorney J. Erik Connolly that ABC's use of the term 'pink slime' did not depict reality.

"Clearly the term is being associated with and is being put in people's mouths who have never used the term before. USDA has never used that term, the grocery stores never used the term - we never used the term - AMI never used the term - this is a rebranding activity now associated with the product - now it's just pink slime, pink slime, pink slime," Jochum said.
 
Under cross-examination, ABC attorney Dane Butswinkas cited USDA correspondence to the company about LFTB labeling:
 
“Butswinkas: So he’s telling you that based on his understanding of the agency definition of beef trimmings, your product doesn’t meet that definition. Isn’t that right?
Jochum: He’s obviously indicated, what he said here . . . the compositional criteria he discussed were actually the compositional criteria for, to be different, to be LFTB.
Butswinkas: Sir what it says is they’ve reviewed your names and they are not compatible with the agency’s definition of beef trimmings.
Jochum: He uses those words.”
 

Butswinkas also questioned Jochum about reports from other news outlets prior to ABC's 20-12 stories that noted findings of e coli and salmonella in BPI's product. and about radio host Rush Limbaugh's commentary on LFTB. After numerous objections from the plaintiffs, the judge called a recess on Tuesday afternoon to clarify how non-ABC articles could be used as evidence.
 
On Wednesday morning, First Circuit Judge Cheryle Gering told the jury they could only consider that information to decide if ABC knowingly reported false statements and that was the cause of BPI's economic woes. During a redirect that same day, Connolly noted that Butswinkas did not show Jochum any broadcasts or online reports from the network.
 
The Tuesday dismissal and the extensive questioning of Jochum pushed some witnesses from grocery companies and BPI co-owner Nick Roth to next week's witness list. The plaintiffs are also expected to call professor Daniel Sumner to the stand. He teaches agricultural economics at the University of California-Davis. The jury is expected to start deliberations next month.