March 12, 2009
Postings from March 12, 2009, in reverse chronological order. Read from the bottom up.
Redirect Gets Heated
Kris A. McLean continued his redirect of examination of Dr. Aubrey Miller through the end of Thursday. The afternoon’s examination proceeded at a deliberate pace with nearly every one of McLean’s lines of questioning drawing an objection from various defense attorneys, primarily David Bernick. In response to one of Bernick’s more drawn out relevancy objections, Judge Molloy responded by saying, “I don’t need any more speeches, what is your objection?”
Mr Bernick had asked on cross examination about ‘ambient air samples’ collected between 1999 and 2000. McLean sought clarification on this point and Dr. Miller testified that ‘ambient air samples’ refers to, “outside air gathered by background monitors and is not indicative of personal exposure levels.” McLean asked Miller to described the mechanism by which samples were taken but Bernick objected on the grounds that the question exceeded the scope of cross-examination and the objection was sustained.
McLean used this distinction to attack two defense exhibits, exhibit 8831 and exhibit 5436.20. Both were letters from Paul Peronard, which stated that no ambient contamination was found at various Libby sites. Miller testified that Peronard meant that the stationary monitors showed no ‘background contamination’ and his statement did not apply to specific work areas.
Miller then testified to a term used throughout his testimony: PEL or Permissible Exposure Limit. He clarified that this permissible exposure limit was in reference to workers and did not apply anyone outside the workplace. McLean began listing classes of people to whom the PEL did not apply including, “kids playing, people driving up the road to have a beer,” to which Molloy interjected, “you don’t have to list everybody outside the workplace.”
However, it was after court adjourned for the evening that tensions reached their high point. Bernick raised several allegations against the prosecution, stating, “It is palpably clear that Dr. Miller has been transformed from a witness whose opinion consisted of one paragraph, to the whole case on redirect.” Bernick went on to allege that the prosecution’s demonstrative exhibits encompass drafts and materials which have not been produced. Bernick pointed out to the court that no privilege exists as to expert reliance materials and went on to allege that it was the prosecutions intentional motive to force defense attorneys to raise objections before the jury. On these grounds, Bernick moved the court to compel the production of all expert reliance materials, for continued cross-examination, and to strike all testimony based on reliance materials that had not been produced.
Despite Kris McLean’s assertion that he was “in a quandary” as to what materials the defense thought had not been produced, Molloy ordered that all reliance materials be produced and allowed the defense cross-examination limited to the newly produced materials.
-Bert Certain, 1:30 p.m.
Posted: March 13th, 2009 under Law.
Tags: , Bernick, McLean, Miller, re-direct
Comments: none | [edit]
Week 4: After truncated start, Miller’s testimony begins but isn’t over
A week filled with mild hostility and objections from both sides came to a close on Thursday afternoon with a heated exchange between lead defense attorney David Bernick and Kris McLean, attorney for the U.S. government. The only witness to take the stand this week was Dr. Aubrey Miller, but the government witness’s testimony and conflicts over it provided plenty of action throughout.
The fourth week of the W.R. Grace trial in Missoula began with more frustration for Judge Donald Molloy as the testimony of Miller, a toxicologist for the EPA’s Region 8 office in Denver, was postponed one day due to a juror falling ill.
Instead of Miller’s testimony beginning as scheduled, Molloy spent the majority of Monday questioning the prosecution about the relevance of a number of exhibits to which the defense had objected, including a number of air sample results from the Libby area.
The issue of whether or not Miller would be accepted an expert was a hot topic Monday. Molloy ultimately decided that the government’s witness would be considered one, freeing Miller to state opinions and come to conclusions based on his research.
With the sick juror back in court, Miller started to testify Tuesday morning. During direct examination by the prosecution, Miller recalled his initial visit to Libby in November, 1999, accompanied by Dr. Christopher Weis, to examine the public health of Libby’s residents and the claims surrounding non-occupational illness.
Miller noted that he was surprised at that time to find non-miners suffering from respiratory disease that seemed tied to asbestos exposure.
“To see someone who had died of asbestos-related disease who was not a worker was unheard of,” Miller said in his testimony.
McClean’s initial questioning focused on establishing Miller as an expert and explaining how he came to his ultimate beliefs about asbestos-related disease and risk in Libby. Miller’s opinion on the overall health of Libby was a crucial piece to the prosecution’s case. Before the direct examination of Miller concluded Tuesday afternoon, Miller testified that, in his expert opinion, asbestos exposure in Libby posed a clear danger then, and still does now: “It’s an imminent danger,” he said.
If there was another theme of asbestos exposure Miller seemed to want to drive home to the court it was how important the length of exposure of people to contaminated materials is to the development of related diseases.
When asked why the danger was imminent, Miller said, “It’s an uncontrolled release.
“People can interact with it. It’s a cumulative effect, where fibers go in lungs … causing a disease to occur over time.”
Wednesday and Thursday gave the defense a chance to cross-examine Miller, and they worked to chip away at his objectivity and credibility. Bernick compared letters from the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday, working to show that early in the Libby cleanup statements made about health risks contradicted Miller’s later statements that Libby’s environment poses health risks to its residents. Bernick also sought to show the government had known about the contamination of Libby prior to 1999 and had done nothing to warn the public about it.
Thursday, Thomas Frongillo, the defense attorney representing Robert Bettacchi, follow Bernick in questioning Miller’s data and studies. Frongillo recalled a study by Dr. Meeker, an upcoming witness, that showed 95 percent of Libby asbestos amphibole was a type of asbestos not technically illegal by government standards.
The constant disputation of Miller’s expertise created a tense atmosphere, and Miller became somewhat defiant in the witness stand. He seemed to be annoyed by the defense, and went off on long, winding answers when question by the prosecution. When Molloy let out the jury for afternoon recess, the judge addressed Miller directly, addressing a flurry of lengthy responses from the witness.
“I’m asking you to respond to the questions asked of you,” Molloy said. “If he (McLean) wants to take you someplace, he’ll take you there.” He also reminded Miller that his behavior affects the jury. One of the tools they use to evaluate witnesses is if they are credible. Molloy warned him that the “jury can lose credibility of you.”
In the late afternoon, a contentious exchange broke out between McLean and Bernick. He criticized the prosecution’s redirect for, in his mind, restating the initial direct examination, and believed the state had not provided the defense with all necessary materials.
“I am in a quandary for what other materials the defense wants,” McLean said when pressed about the missing information.
At one point, Bernick interrupted the prosecutor, causing McLean to exclaim, “I’ve got the floor, I’m standing here!”
Court is recessed until 9:00 Monday morning when the prosecution’s re-direct examination of Dr. Aubrey Miller will continue, followed by a limited cross-examination by the defense.
– Chris D’Angelo & Josh Benham (11:02 A.M.)
Posted: March 13th, 2009 under News.
Comments: 1 | [edit]
“Just Answer the Question!” — Miller’s Cross-Examination Ends
Defense counsel Thomas Frongillo concluded his cross-examination of Dr. Miller in a series of contentious exchanges that ironically emphasized Frongillo’s argument, but produced little relevant information for the jury’s record. Frongillo began his afternoon examination by attacking certain assumptions and conclusions Miller had made during his direct examination. Frongillo eased into his examination by moving between a few minor exhibits presented on direct, but quickly moved in for the kill.
Frongillo had Judge Molloy take judicial notice of five different federal administrative rules and one statute, all of which defined the types of minerals that meet the definition of “asbestos.” None of these definitions included either “wincherite” or “richterite.” Frongillo asked a series of pointed questions, backed up with study data, emphasizing that somewhere around 95% of the airborne fibers found in certain EPA samples from Libby were “wincherite” and “richterite” (substances that are legally not asbestos). Dr. Miller evaded any concession favoring Frongillo’s questions, eventually earning a rebuke from Judge Molloy. After Miller’s petulant statement that, “As far as I’m concerned it’s all asbestos,” Molloy interrupted the examination, turned to Miller, and instructed him to just “listen to the questions and answer them directly.”
Frongillo pressed his points regarding the fact that, while certainly present in the air, the “wincherite” and “richterite” mentioned in the superseding indictment could not legally satisfy the definition of asbestos. This forced Miller to concede that the defense’s evidentiary documents “said what they said.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kris McLean tried to rescue Dr. Miller, objecting to certain documents and questions Frongillo asked Miller. After driving his point home in the face of some well-taken objections, Frongillo concluded his cross-examination.
After offering other defense attorneys the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Miller, Judge Molloy allowed Mr. McLean to attempt to rehabilitate his witness. Dr. Miller testified briefly about his opinion that air moved freely within property at the screening plant that the Parkers had purchased from Grace, but Mr. Bernick soon started winning objections that hindered McLean’s examination. Mr. Mclean could not seem to formulate a non-leading question, stopping Dr. Miller in mid-sentence several times. When asked by Judge Molloy to define the difference between “qualitative” and “quantitative,” Dr. Miller needed a few tries to formulate a satisfactory answer.
McLean did manage to introduce evidence that Grace had informed that EPA that workers had not left the mine with dust on their clothes, evidence that could support the conspiracy and obstruction charges, but Bernick’s objections prevented McLean from going far on the point.
Judge Molloy interrupted testimony at this point to call an early, and uncharacteristically long, afternoon break. Once the jury left the room, Judge Molloy turned to Miller and took him to the woodshed a second time. In an especially odd turn of events for a direct examination, Judge Molloy told Miller to stop elaborating and just answer McLean’s questions. “It’s getting to the point where you’re becoming an advocate, but then you go someplace you think he wants you to go,” Molloy said. The judge explained that he had excused the jurors so as to not embarrass Miller in their presence. Molloy then asked to see lead counsel for every party in chambers, and court adjourned for the afternoon’s recess.
Mark Lancaster -posted 7:15 p.m.
Posted: March 12th, 2009 under Law.
Tags: Frongillo, Miller
Comments: none | [edit]
Defense to cross-examine Miller a second time Monday
After hearing a heated argument from defense attorney David Bernick, Judge Donald Molloy decided after court adjourned Thursday afternoon to give the defense a second cross-examination of witness Aubrey Miller.
Appearing tense and angry, Bernick criticized the prosecution’s handling of Miller, a public health specialist and expert witness, and demanded another chance at cross-examination.
Bernick claimed that, through Miller’s testimony, the prosecution brought up additional materials and opinions outside the witness’ expertise and put the defense at an enormous disadvantage. He also cited the government’s redirect examination, which, according to him, was a continual recitation of the original direct examination and wounded his efforts at a legitimate cross-examination.
“The cross-examination process is a shadow of what it’s supposed to be,” Bernick said.
Prosecutor Kris McLean countered Bernick and explained that, contrary to what the defense said, the government had disclosed everything relating to the basis of Miller’s testimony.
“I am in a quandary for what other materials the defense want,” McLean said.
The heated exchange between the two peaked as Bernick interrupted McLean, prompting the prosecutor to exclaim, “I’ve got the floor, I’m standing here!”
In his response, Molloy allowed the defense a limited cross-examination after the prosecution’s redirect examination on March 16. In addition, he demanded that the government hand over any additional materials and evidence to the defense by 10:00 a.m. Friday.
Bernick’s requests followed a lengthy redirect examination of Miller by the prosecution. The witness’s testimony was peppered with objections from the defense and covered his tour of the plant and answered doubts posed by the defense as pertaining to his expertise and actions in Libby, Mont.
-Nate Hegyi (posted 6:51 p.m.)
Posted: March 12th, 2009 under News.
Comments: none | [edit]
Frongillo ends cross-examination of Miller
The government’s redirect examination of Aubrey Miller started late in the day Thursday, after defense attorney Thomas Frongillo ended his cross-examination of Miller earlier in the afternoon in the W.R. Grace trial.
Frongillo’s focus for the early afternoon session was to piggyback on lead defense attorney David Bernick’s questioning. Mainly, Frongillo was trying to establish that the asbestos in Libby does not pose a potent danger to Libby residents and to discredit Miller’s opinion further.
One of Frongillo’s key pieces of evidence was a study conducted by a Dr. Gregory Meeker, an upcoming witness, that showed chemical levels of minerals in the Libby area. The study said 85 percent of the Libby asbestos amphibole there was richterite, 11 percent winchite and 5 percent tremolite. Frongillo said after seeing Meeker’s study, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) tried to change its mineral definition of asbestos.
Frongillo asked if winchite and richterite, close relatives of tremolite, were absent from the federal regulations Grace is charged with violating. Miller, a toxicologist and occupational health specialist for the federal government, said that is correct.
As his prolonged testimony continued another day, Miller became stiff and bland towards the defense at this point. “If that’s what it says, then that’s what it is,” was a common theme of Miller’s answers to the defense.
At one point Frongillo asked him about the differences between types of asbestos.
“I don’t know … it’s all asbestos to me,” Miller quickly replied.
Frongillo successfully moved for the comment to be stricken from the record.
Many in the courtroom seemed surprised when Frongillo abrubtly ended his questioning after bringing up the winchite and richterite tests. Molloy asked the rest of the defense if they had anything to add, and they all were finished with Miller.
Kris McLean, attorney for the U.S. government, set about to redirect Miller. The assistant U.S. attorney tried to show the depth and complexities of Miller’s tests in the Libby area.
But as the day grew longer, so did Miller’s answers. Bernick objected multiple times when Miller’s responses would not specifically address the state’s questions.
Just as abruptly as the defense ended its cross-examination, Judge Donald Molloy declared afternoon recess a little early. After excusing the jury, Molloy addressed Miller directly, admonishing him for “becoming an advocate.”
“I’m asking you to respond to the questions asked of you,” Molloy said. “If he (McLean) wants to take you someplace, he’ll take you there.”
Molloy reminded Miller to remember that the jury could be affected by his demeanor. One of the tools they use to evaluate witnesses is if they are credible. Molloy warned him that the “jury can lose credibility of you.”
Molloy then officially excused the court. The redirect of Miller by the government will continue after the break.
–Josh Benham (posted 4:01 P.M.)
Posted: March 12th, 2009 under News.
Comments: none | [edit]
Continued Cross of Miller
Defense attorney Thomas Frongillo—representing Robert Bettacchi—continued to cross examine Dr. Aubrey Miller late this morning, Thursday, March 12.
Robert Bettacchi is charged with two counts of violating the Clean Air Act – Knowing Endangerment:
Robert Bettacchi . . . did knowingly release and caused to be released into the ambient air a hazardous air pollutant, namely, asbestos, and at the time knowingly placed another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury by selling real property known as the “Screening Plant” to the Parker family . . . and by leasing a property knowing as the “Export Plant” to the Burnetts and selling the property known as the “Export Plant” to the City of Libby . . . (emphasis added).
Mr. Frongillo’s cross examination focused on the Government’s knowledge of the harm caused by the Libby vermiculite, and specifically, Dr. Miller’s knowledge of harm. Mr. Frongillo used multiple exhibits, mostly emails and letters regarding EPA team conference calls, to pinpoint years on his demonstrative timeline. Each pinpoint demonstrated another year in which the Government, in its different capacities, knew of the dangers of the Libby vermiculite. The timeline showed that the Government and Dr. Miller had knowledge of the harm caused by Libby vermiculite as early as 1985, and yet, until approximately year 2000, failed to warn Libby residents.
Mr. Frongillo succeeded in questioning Dr. Miller’s responsibility by attempting to prove that Dr. Miller had a duty to warn the people of Libby, but failed to fulfill his duty. Dr. Miller countered Mr. Frongillo’s argument by explaining that his responsibility fell within the confines of health assessments, not with the clean-up or community involvement.
Mr. Frongillo additionally attempted to impeach Dr. Miller by showing him an exhibit of a community Q & A and press release of which Dr. Miller took part. The Q & A response from the EPA stated, “the EPA did not take immediate steps to relocate people because there was no immediate health risk from asbestos [at the Screening Plant and Export Plant] . . . (emphasis added).” In yesterday’s direct examination, Dr. Miller testified that exposure to asbestos and Libby vermiculite posed a clear danger and an imminent danger. Mr. Frongillo equated the word immediate with imminent as defined in the Clean Air Act charges, to show that if no immediate danger existed, then imminent danger could not have existed. See Motion in Limine for discussion on imminent. Dr. Miller attempted to rehabilitate himself by explaining that while asbestos may not necessarily be an immediate health concern it can still be imminent.
Government’s Exhibit 621, a letter dated April 5, 1995, will be an important factor in the jury’s decision. This exhibit, introduced by the Mr. Frongillo, explained that the State of Montana and the EPA inspected the Libby Mine in 1995 and found no apparent Clean Air Act violations. The letter stated that neither the State nor the EPA would plan to take action. Mr. Frongillo left a question for the jury, “Ten years have passed and now there is a criminal indictment for Clean Air Act violations. How could the Government indict for violations of the Clean Air Act in 2005, when in 1995 [the EPA] did not find any violations?” Mr. Frongillo continued by stating that his client, Mr. Bettacchi, had already sold the Screening Plant and leased the Export Plant before the indictment. The Screening Plant was sold on December 17, 1993. The Export Plant was leased to various people and entities from 1994 until 2000.
– Audrey Schultz (posted 2:30 p.m.)
Posted: March 12th, 2009 under Law.
Tags: Clean Air Act, cross, Frongillo, Miller
Comments: 2 | [edit]
Cross-examination of Miller heats up
Dr. Aubrey Miller, an expert witness for the government, bucked several questions from defense attorney Thomas Frongillo, and even posed a few of his own as the W.R. Grace trial continued late Thursday morning.
Frongillo’s line of questioning seemed to change as he arrived at a couple of dead ends. Right after the mid-morning break, he entered a flurry of e-mails that Miller had received from Environmental Protection Agency’s Libby team members, as well as a 1985 government report on the dangerous concentrations of tremolite at the Libby mine. Frongillo asked whether Miller remembered the e-mails and their contents, many of which he did not specifically recall. But he often answered questions of content by saying, “It says what it says.” In the flood of evidence, some jurors rocked in their chairs, while others held their pens above their notepads, seemingly unsure of what might be pertinent.
The e-mails called for meetings and conference calls to discuss attached documents, which mostly showed what different government agencies had concluded about safety at Libby mine since the 1970s. Frongillo asked repeatedly if Miller remembered the meetings and conference calls, and insinuated the government team was doing damage control, and trying to keep the public from learning what the government knew all along. Miller didn’t recall any one of them specifically, and said that he was more involved with the health of individuals in the community.
Frongillo asked if Miller was a member of the EPA team in Libby or not. When Miller said that he was, Frongillo entered a press release from EPA’s Libby team that said, in explaining why individuals like Mel and Lerah Parker had not been relocated, there was “no immediate health risk.”
Frongillo asked how Miller could make a statement like that to the public when in his testimony he said that low-dose asbestos exposure was extremely dangerous. Miller said that it was not his statement but that of the EPA team and informing the public was EPA on-site coordinator Paul Peronard’s responsibility.
“You had him (Peronard) on the stand,” Miller said. “You could have asked him these questions.”
But when Frongillo dug into the fact that Miller was a part of the team, Miller said that the nature of asbestos poisoning meant that a few more weeks would not make for a significant change in residents’ health, but that chronic low-dose exposure over many years was extremely dangerous.
This answer forced Frongillo into a different line of questioning. He entered a 1995 letter to Libby resident Mike Crill, who had written the EPA about his concern over the toxicity of the Libby mine. State officials had inspected the site and found no violations, which was reported to the EPA. In its reply, the EPA thanked Crill for his concern and explicitly stated that there were no violations of the Clean Air Act. At this point a number of jurors were jotting notes.
Frongillo finished off the morning with two extensive monologues in which he laid out the basics of a theory in which the government did nothing to regulate Grace, the people of Libby chose to violate EPA recommendations and expose themselves to contaminated vermiculite, and the EPA didn’t sufficiently inform the public about the hazards. After each monologue, he asked Miller to assume them as true, and to state his opinion on whether Grace or Robert Bettachi, Frongillo’s client, could be implicated in this case.
Both times, the government objected to this form of questioning, and both times, Molloy overruled the objections. Miller said he didn’t believe the statements were true and therefore couldn’t form an opinion.
Shortly after, Molloy called for a recess. As onlookers in the gallery began to stand, he looked at the jury and said that, on a closer examination of the circumstances, the government’s recent objections should have been sustained. He did not say whether he was actually sustaining the objections retroactively. With that, the courtroom emptied for lunch.
-Alex Tenenbaum (1:05 p.m.)
(edited March 13)
Posted: March 12th, 2009 under News.
Comments: 1 | [edit]
Filling in the Dates with Dr. Miller Continues
The defense continued its cross examination of Dr. Miller this morning, leading him through a series of questions and answers designed to show one thing: there was no conspiracy by W.R. Grace and its executives.
Court commenced with the defense questioning Dr. Miller about the government’s demonstrative exhibits Nos. 811 and 818, both of which the EPA and Miller prepared for use in this trial. Exhibit 811 shows the airborne asbestos levels during sweeping activities at the screen plant. Dr. Miller and members of the EPA team decided for this exhibit to eliminate the EPA’s reference to the sample being “indoor air.” Exhibit 818 shows a chart of the samples which used residential benchmarks to determine exposure.
Defense counsel Frongillo repeatedly asked Dr. Miller about previous drafts of both demonstrative exhibits. Dr. Miller said he did have prior versions saved electronically, and Frongillo requested the prior electronic drafts be turned over to the defense before the cross examination of Dr. Miller is finished. Judge Molloy agreed and will require the government turn the drafts over.
Frongillo next questioned Dr. Miller about his involvement in Andrew Schneider’s book, An Air that Kills. Defense counsel used quotes from the book to show the government knew about the friability of the asbestos in Libby and knew of the adverse health effects. Frongillo quoted a passage of the book in which Dr. Weis and Dr. Miller were in Spokane reading four government reports about the asbestos in Libby. The four reports were published by various agencies or contractors of the government in 1980, 1982, 1985, and 1991.
Frongillo carefully steered the testimony to the four reports. The first report was government exhibit 220, named Priority Review Level 1 Report from 1980. In the report, OSHA was investigating workers’ exposure to asbestos-containing vermiculite at O. M. Scott & Sons Co. Frongillo used the report to show that the government knew the vermiculite was friable and knew the friability had adverse health effects. Frongillo concluded his questioning on the first report by showing the defense demonstrative timeline. The date the government knew about the problems in Libby was moved to before 1980.
Frongillo next questioned Dr. Miller about a report prepared by the Midwest Research Institute in 1982. The report was introduced as Defense Exhibit 5523 and was admitted without objection. MRI was a consultant group hired by the government and the government wanted an in-depth analysis of the fibers present for asbestos-containing vermiculite. Frongillo inserted this date into the defense timeline also.
The final report before morning recess was proposed government exhibit 441A, which Frongillo introduced before the government could. The government had no objection to its own exhibit. This report was prepared by Versar, Inc., another government contractor. The report was dated in February 1985, and Frongillo linked the first two reports to the information in this report. This report was an exposure assessment, and Frongillo used the report to show the government was investigating exposure pathways.
Dr. Miller testified he read the reports sometime in early 2000, and Frongillo proceeded to attack the conspiracy charge. Frongillo argued the reports show the government was investigating asbestos-containing vermiculite as early as 1980, and once the government knew of the adverse health effects, the government still did nothing. Frongillo is continuing the defense’s argument that the government should be held accountable for ignoring its own reports and W.R. Grace and its executives should not be held criminally liable.
— Maggie Braun
Posted: March 12th, 2009 under Law.
Tags: Defense, EPA, Frongillo
Comments: none | [edit]
Frongillo forges ahead
Defense attorney Thomas Frongillo continued his cross examination of Dr. Aubrey Miller on Thursday morning, trying to establish just how much the government knew about the dangers of asbestos exposure in Libby, Mont. Using passages from Andrew Schneider’s book, “An Air That Kills,” Frongillo questioned Miller on his knowledge of several government reports published in the early ’80s and presented to the EPA team that investigated Libby. Frongillo maintained that these reports prove that the highest levels of the EPA were aware of the dangers present in Libby.
Referring to a report from June 5, 1980, Frongillo clarified just how much he believes the government knew.
“We have a report here … saying A, [asbestos] is friable and B, you can get sick if you handle this stuff,” he said. Frongillo represents defendant Robert Bettacchi, a former senior vice president of WR Grace and Co.
Miller disputed Frongillo’s point, saying that the reports from facilities such as O.M. Scott, where Grace’s vermiculite was shipped, were different from the conditions in Libby. Miller said that although the EPA team received many such reports from government archives, the issue in Libby dealt with high exposure levels from relatively low concentrations of asbestos, something that had not previously been investigated. Miller admitted that the government was active in Libby, but said such studies did not inform him on the health risk to workers and residents.
“[The studies] certainly showed that there was a lot of government interest in this site,” he said. “If we knew what Grace knew from their studies we would have done more.”
Frongillo appeared impatient several times during the cross examination, cutting Miller’s answers short and instructing the doctor to refrain from further explanation. After establishing that Miller read these documents in 2000, Frongillo tried to show the jury that the collection of reports built on knowledge from the late ’70s when the EPA began looking into asbestos exposure at the O.M. Scott plant in Marysville, Ohio.
“What we’ve got here is a connecting link between these three reports,” he said. “ I just want to make it very clear that the series of reports goes back to O.M. Scott in 1978.”
–Kyle Lehman (posted 11:03 a.m.)
Posted: March 12th, 2009 under News.
Comments: 1 | [edit]