UM Grace Case

Direct examination of EPA on-site supervisor Paul Peronard concluded today, followed immediately by the beginning of what promises to be an emotionally charged, and very interesting, cross examination.

As he finished his direct examination testimony, Peronard identified (and testified regarding) several documents received during the time the EPA has been in Libby. These documents, mostly from the late seventies and early eighties, covered diverse topics from work-order type documents detailing cleanup of the school tracks to orders to destroy brooms at the expansion plant to minimize dust in the air. The defense objected vigorously to admission of nearly every one of these exhibits, which forced the prosecution to lay more foundation before Judge Molloy would admit them and allow the jury to see them. When Judge Molloy admitted these exhibits he was careful to explain very clearly the limited purposes for which the jury could use the evidence, namely not to consider these exhibits or Peronard’s testimony regarding them when looking at the “knowing endangerment” or “ambient air” factual issues.

All of the documents admitted into evidence during Peronard’s early afternoon testimony were, in his opinion, documents that should have been submitted to the EPA as it worked through its investigation of asbestos in Libby. In his opinion, as an expert in administering EPA clean-ups, Grace had not met its reporting requirements, which was strong evidence favoring conviction under the obstruction of justice counts of the superseding indictment.

The defense then began its cross-examination of Peronard. Defense counsel David M. Bernick and Peronard immediately began sparring, with Peronard making Bernick’s job difficult by refusing to answer questions with a simple yes or no, instead launching into explanations or problems with the questions Bernick asked. Bernick kept pressing the point that many of the disclosures Peronard had apparently expected during the EPA investigation could have been presented only by older employees such as Alan Stringer digging deep into decades-old memory. Peronard reluctantly admitted that recalling such old events could be very difficult, but insisted that Grace could easily have found older employees with knowledge and memory sufficient to adequately meet the EPA’s information requests.

At exactly three o’clock on the dot, despite the interesting and heated exchange between Peronard and Bernick, Judge Molloy called for a short break, and as always, I had to leave and pass the torch to another student.

–Mark Lancaster