UM Grace Case

Judge Molloy set the legal stage during voir dire by focusing his attention on the role of the jury in a criminal trial, specific legal definitions, and facts pertinent to the case.

In his attempt to select an objective jury, Judge Molloy questioned each potential juror about his or her ability to be fair and impartial. Since the jury pool extends throughout Western Montana, many potential jurors are related to residents of Libby, have some connection to the town, or even reside in Libby. Although each juror most likely wishes or even assumes he or she could objectively participate as a juror, many will likely be removed for cause. For example, one likely removal will be a journalist for Western News, situated in Libby. When questioned about his ability to be fair and impartial, he replied that he simply could not be objective. Another potential juror, a business man who lends to customers in Libby stated, “[I] would have a hard time looking [my customers] in the eye if [the case] goes against them.” Another potential removal will be a resident of Libby, born and raised—who had been screened for asbestosis. When Judge Molloy asked about his personal use of contaminated baseball fields and the running track in Libby, the man stated, “We all played baseball [on those fields]. We were all exposed.”

Judge Molloy additionally set the framework for the important legal issues and definitions that will be paramount in this case. Judge Molloy asked almost every potential juror about his or her personal definition of “release” and “imminent harm.” The definitions of these words and phrase will be critical during deliberations. Judge Molloy, without legally defining the words, sought assurance that each potential juror could set aside a personal definition and embrace a new, legal definition given by the Judge himself.

Additionally, Judge Molloy focused on the role of the Government and the defense attorneys. He specifically stated that the defense attorneys need not introduce evidence to acquit each Defendant. Moreover, he explained that the Defendants have the right to choose not to testify. Judge Molloy also clarified that if a Defendant chooses not to testify, the jurors cannot assume the Defendant’s guilt. He explained that the burden lies with the Government to prove their case against each Defendant, by beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal standard of proof in a criminal trial.

- Audrey Schultz