Judge in oil spill trial lectures both sides for wasting time

SANTA BARBARA -- As the criminal negligence trial of an oil company entered its third month Monday with the defense's first witness, Superior Court Judge James Herman lectured the prosecution and defense for wasting time throughout the trial, which began in May.

Herman expressed concerns with the length of the trial and the dwindling number of jurors, and said the risk of a mistrial still loomed.

As he has done before, the judge again urged both sides, outside the presence of the Santa Barbara County jury, to expedite their examinations of witnesses and submissions of evidence and documents.

The state attorney general's office and the Santa Barbara County district attorney are prosecuting Plains All American Pipeline in connection with a 2015 oil spill that dumped 140,000 gallons of crude onto Refugio State Beach. People v. Plains All American Pipeline LP, 1495091 (Santa Barbara Super. Ct., filed May 16, 2016).

"The court, as the parties are aware, has a duty as directed by the rules of court to be conscientious regarding jury time," Herman said.

Herman criticized the prosecution and defense for submitting unidentified documents which he said caused additional sidebars and consumption of time that otherwise could have been used for important matters concerning the trial.

"My directive is aimed at both parties, not just Plains, that in order to get this case completed without a mistrial, we need to deal with the submissions," Herman said. "I will observe that the people, during the commencement of the examinations, came up with documents that had not been previously identified as documents that would be used during the hearing and it has caused us delay. Similarly, Plains during their cross-examination did the same thing."

After Herman issued his directive, both sides seemed to blame the other for causing the delay.

"Your honor, the people don't have any new exhibits I mean we're not playing the same game as Plains in providing the material up front," said Deputy District Attorney Kevin Weichbrod.

Herman said he wasn't interested in accusations and simply wanted to "tighten our timeline."

"We need to work together to bring this trial to a conclusion within the time ramification of the jury. That is my duty," Herman said.

Plains' counsel called their first witness after the jury was brought in.

Robert Haddad, an environmental and ecological sciences group vice president and principal scientist from Exponent, a consultant firm, was called to testify about the toxicology report of certain marine mammals that the oil company is accused of harming or killing by the oil spill.

The prosecution has alleged seven animals of various species were killed.

Lead defense attorney Gary Lincenberg of Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow PC, asked Haddad during direct examination, if the presence of oil from the 2015 spill was found in or outside of the dolphin listed in one of the criminal counts against Plains.

"No, I see no case for exposure on this animal," Haddad replied.

Haddad testified that the toxicology report of the three marine mammals mentioned in the charges did not show any significant evidence that suggested oil ingestion.

"I saw no evidence with these animals that they had [ingested] any oil in the esophagus or stomachs," Haddad said.

During cross-examination, Weichbrod asked Haddad if he had previously testified and consulted for oil and Fortune 500 companies.

"You've worked as a consultant or directly for Unical, Tesoro, Chevron, British Petroleum, Shell, Sherwin Williams, and you've done that throughout your career?" Weichbrod asked. Haddad replied yes.

After Haddad's testimony, the defense called independent veterinary forensic pathologist consultant Richard Stroud, who confirmed much of what Haddad had said.

Stroud said one of the marine mammals mentioned in the charges had most likely died of an infection caused by a puncture wound, possibly from a gunshot.

"There's also a description of an abscess which ... has a secondary inflammation that would be something associated with a traumatic puncture wound, characteristic of a bullet," Stroud said.

"Do these diagnostic findings lead you to conclude from the available evidence that this animal died due to the exposure of oil?" Lincenberg asked.

"No," Stroud replied.