Woman pursues jackpot claim against LV firm

Jack Elliott Jr

Thursday, April 1, 1999 | 10:28 a.m.

JACKSON, Miss. -- A woman fighting a Nevada company over a $1.74 million slot machine jackpot believes the Mississippi Supreme Court will side with her.

Effie Freeman of Courtland, Ala., sat through an hourlong hearing Wednesday before the court as her attorneys and those for Casino Data Systems argued over whether her claim to a Cool Millions jackpot will stand up.

"I'm excited. I feel like they know it was a jackpot, and I have felt from day one that it was a jackpot," Freeman said afterwards.

Justices have given no indication when they might rule. The Mississippi Supreme Court has not dealt with the issue of what triggers a jackpot.

Freeman claims she put three coins into the Cool Millions slot machine in April 1995 at the Splash Casino in Tunica County, hit three ducks and won the progressive jackpot.

CDS denied the Freeman's claim to the jackpot on grounds the slot machine's computer and two backups registered only a jammed machine. CDS argued Wednesday that the computers -- all required by the Gaming Commission -- are the final determination of whether a jackpot occurred.

The Gaming Commission sided with CDS. Freeman sued CDS, and a Tunica County judge ruled for her in January 1998. CDS appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The Gaming Commission was involved because any jackpot over $50,000 has to be verified by state regulators.

Katie Hester of Jackson, the attorney for CDS, said the computers showed Freeman hit only two ducks and won $5.

"If the progressive jackpot had been won, the computer would have shut down the slot machine. It could have no longer been played ... until the system was reset," Hester said.

Hester said there are no coin payouts involved when a jackpot is won.

Briggs Smith of Batesville, representing Freeman, said when his client protested that she had won the jackpot over statements from the casino that she did not, nothing was done by the casino or the Gaming Commission to shut down the machine and preserve its computer records.

Smith said Splash Casino and the Gaming Commission, in what he said was in violation of its own rules, allowed the people to continue playing the machine and did no more testing on it until Freeman's formal complaint in August.

He said the Gaming Commission hearing officer did not consider eyewitnesses to Freeman's playing the slot machine, relied on videotapes that did show the actual results of Freeman's play and a statement from a slot machine attendant that Smith said was unreliable.

Smith said the Tunica judge wisely did not rely on the dated computer data to decide the case.

"Mrs. Freeman won the jackpot. There is no credible evidence to support the contrary," Smith said.

Hester said that CDS had nothing to do with how the casino dealt with the slot machine. She said at the time the dispute arose, the Splash Casino had closed and records submitted to the court were the only ones available.

However, Justice Chuck McRae said CDS should have some concern about how a casino handles disputes involving its machines.

"We have no control over the site, Splash Casino," Hester said. "We have no control over the day-to-day play at the casino."

Smith said casino patrons have the right to expect that the Gaming Commission rules are followed. He said CDS had the responsibility to live up to the contract printed on its slot machine.

"The machine said three coins, three ducks, win a million. It doesn't say it has to be verified by a computer," Smith said.

CDS is responsible for maintenance on the microprocessor computers that randomly select combinations out of hundreds of thousands of possibilities. Machines that offer very large jackpots, such as progressives tied into other slots, usually have only one winning combination among millions of possibilities.

Casinos can program only how much money a slot holds back. They have no control over the random combinations the game's computer ultimately selects.