GBENGA O.

June 8, 2000

Dear (redacted)
I am in receipt of your letter of May 10, 2000, which was
addressed to me at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As you
can see from the letterhead, I am a district judge, not an
appellate judge.
However, as you are no doubt aware, I know a good bit about the
Exxon Valdez litigation. Your letter suggests a number of
rather troubling assumptions about the parties and the timing
of the Exxon Valdez litigation.
You speak of the courts having the purpose of righting wrongs
and the downtrodden seeking redress. You discuss large corporate
entities abusing the legal system. I can only assume that
you are of the view that the plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez
litigation are downtrodden folk and that Exxon Corporation has
abused the legal process. Neither assumption is correct.
It is unlikely that Alaska commercial fishermen consider themselves
downtrodden. Some of them are wealthy. In the Exxon
Valdez litigation, the fishermen were represented by attorneys
who are highly experienced in handling cases such as we are
discussing. The same was true of counsel for Exxon Corporation.
All of these attorneys–and there were a lot of them–
worked together in a highly cooperative and efficient fashion.
The case was prepared for trial in what many consider to have
been record time. The case was expertly and efficiently presented
and defended. While the trial started on May 1 and
ended about the middle of September, 1994, almost a third of
that trial time was taken up by jury deliberation. There was
no foot-dragging by anyone in the preparation or trial of the
case. From the court’s perception, the preparation and presen-

tation of the Exxon Valdez trial in the district court was a
model of how complex litigation should be developed and presented.
The plaintiffs could not reasonably have expected a
more expeditious resolution of their claims in district court
than they received.
As you have learned, the Exxon Valdez case is still on appeal.
Also, there were some delays in the district court having to do
with entry of a final judgment, and there were significant
delays in the appellate process which were not the fault of any
party to the case. Rather, the difficulty flowed from what
turned out to be legitimate concerns about whether there had
been improper contacts between a court security officer and
members of the jury, one of whom experienced serious emotional
problems during and after deliberations. The investigation of
these matters was long and difficult; but in the end, the court
of appeals recently affirmed this court’s ruling that Exxon
Corporation was not entitled to a new trial because of these
problems. Exxon Corporation’s appeal of the punitive damages
award remains pending.
The point that I make is that these delays were not the responsibility
of any party to the litigation, nor their attorneys.
In raising these matters, Exxon Corporation was taking the same
kind of action which the plaintiffs would (and should) have
taken had the verdict gone the other way. That is, if the jury
had found for Exxon Corporation in this case, the plaintiffs
would surely have taken the case on the same appellate route
that it is now upon, and we might well all still be waiting for
a final decision.
I agree with you that the appeal in this case has taken too
long, but that is not the fault of Exxon Corporation or any of
the parties; nor, for that matter, is it entirely the fault of
the court of appeals which now has the case. During the last

seven years, there has been considerable difficulty in securing
the nomination and confirmation of judges to fill vacancies on
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If that court had its full
complement of judges, decisions would surely be rendered more
quickly.
I apologize if I seem to lecture, but your assumption that
Exxon Corporation is in a position to make rules for the court
of appeals simply because it is wealthy, is absolutely incorrect.
There is a great deal at stake in this case, and Exxon
Corporation is entitled to pursue its appeal just as the fishermen
would have been entitled to pursue an appeal had they not
prevailed in the district court.
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to share with you a
somewhat different point of view as to the Exxon Valdez litigation.
I hope that your studies at college are going well.
Sincerely,
H. Russel

Exxon has not argued that punitive damages are not justified, they are arguing that 4-5 billion is excessive. Not because it was an accident, but that
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously found that none of the “aggravating factors” identified by the Supreme Court as justifying a large punitive damages award were present in the Valdez case. Those factors include violence, intentional spilling of oil, and trickery to hide or facilitate the spill and that Judge Holland has made errors in the last 2 remands to his court.

Try something other than wiki next time, like reading the actual docs.

Comment by Spudge_Boy

That is some funny stuff. When were you born yesterday?

Steeped in Languishingsh*t,

F***off! And take the Alaskan inbreds w/you…

Comment by Spudge_Boy #120

Spudge,

It’s the “American” way…

Liberal judicial activists, my ass.

Really? Is that why it recently tested as reliable as other encyclopedias? I hear bias again on your part pumpkin.

Wiki does have problems with partisan, right wing hacks like steed filling it with nonsense, conjecture, propaganda, mis-information and outright falsehoods, and vandals, which is why I reccomend reading the discussion page tab at every article and checking the history tab as well. It’s an excellent resource and I have spent some time reverting articles with complete right wing bullshit myself. Like FDR was a commie. The John Birchers said the same thing about Ike. Fvcking idiots.

Comment by RightPunch

RP,

I know your are a smart guy, but the “numbers” are completely arbitrary and ideologically driven. And that’s why, as a smart guy, I would hitch my wagon to another team of horses. If they were the same for everyone, doctors wouldn’t prescribe dosage of any drug by body weight, volume and body mass and other factors. MADD has more to do with right wing evangelical extremism than anything else. That’s why idiots on the right always make me laugh. They have no idea what they are facilitating. Wait till it gets to their hooch and guns, and it will.

http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV342.html

ANCHORAGE- Twelve jurors were picked from a pool of more than 60 potential jurors who were questioned in early May during a process called voir dire. After the candidates filled out a questionnaire, attorneys on both sides asked how they felt about alcohol abuse, large corporations and large punitive damage awards, and how much they knew about the 1989 spill and Capt. Joe Hazelwood. One juror was dismissed for unknown reasons halfway through the trial. Ages are estimated on appearance, unless specific ages are given.

JENNIFER L. SMITH

AGE, HOMETOWN: 30s, Anchorage

OCCUPATION: Clerk, state court personnel department

DETAILS: Smith was living in Alaska and working as a trial clerk in the state court at the time of the spill. She said she had no strong opinions about Hazelwood, “other than I know he was involved. He was the captain and he was not on the bridge at the time it happened.” When she was asked if she could be fair, she said, “There is no doubt in my mind.”

LINDA L. HOOD

AGE, HOMETOWN: 40s, Anchorage

OCCUPATION: Clerk, Providence Hospital

DETAILS: Hood, born in Anchorage, was a former flight attendant for Wien Air Alaska. She likes reading John Grisham novels. Her husband is a Teamster, and she has a daughter who is studying at the University of Oregon. “I have no strong feelings about the oil industry,” she said.

ROSE MARTIN

AGE, HOMETOWN: 34, Anchorage

OCCUPATION: Homemaker, school volunteer

DETAILS: Martin moved to Alaska from South Carolina shortly after the spill. Her husband is in the Air Force and scheduled to be transferred in 1995. They have two children, ages 7 and 12. Martin sat through the first three months of the trial; then, as the jury deliberated what to award the fishermen in actual damages, she was dismissed from the panel. The reason for her dismissal is contained in a sealed court document.

BRUCE A. DEAN

AGE, HOMETOWN: 42, Wasilla

OCCUPATION: Unemployed miner

DETAILS: Dean, in the mining business for 20 years in Colorado and Utah, moved to Alaska about eight years ago. Asked what he liked about his work, he said, “I like to blow stuff up.” In 1989, he worked for Martech on the oil-spill cleanup. He said he has no views on the oil industry but has had some “go arounds” with environmental regulators. Exxon attorneys wanted to know why he wrote “BAD” on the jury form next to questions about the oil industry. He responded, “It is my initials.”

NANCY L. PROVOST

AGE, HOMETOWN: 60s, Wasilla

OCCUPATION: Retired factory worker

DETAILS: Provost is a widow who moved to Alaska two years ago to live with her daughter. Until then, she lived in Indiana and Kentucky and was a factory worker and nurse’s aide. She likes to read Agatha Christie mysteries. During voir dire, she said, “I’ve had doubts: Am I smart enough to do this?”

DOUGLAS A. GRAHAM

AGE, HOMETOWN: 34, Anchorage

OCCUPATION: Unemployed

DETAILS: Graham moved from Arizona to Anchorage 18 years ago with his family. He has relatives who worked on the spill cleanup. His mother is asthmatic, and currently he cares for her. During voir dire, he said, “I don’t always believe everything I read in the newspapers.”

KATHERINE J. MOOR

AGE, HOMETOWN: 67, Wasilla

OCCUPATION: Bookkeeper

DETAILS: Moor has lived in Alaska more than 40 years and has six children. She has held a variety of accounting jobs, including working for Rural Alaska and the Mat-Su Borough. In the 1970s, her husband worked for the United Nations and they lived in Pakistan for three years. She said members of her family have had some problems with alcohol and she had been involved in a couple of lawsuits, but she did not understand what punitive damages were.

JEWEL SPANN

AGE, HOMETOWN: 55, Kenai

OCCUPATION: Fast-food restaurant worker

DETAILS: Spann lived in Alaska from 1969 to 1973, moved to Arizona, then returned to Alaska in the mid-1980s. She enjoys fishing and gardening and was working at McDonald’s at the start of the trial. She has family members who have worked in the oil industry.

RITA C. WILSON

AGE, HOMETOWN: 30s, Anchorage

OCCUPATION: Secretary, Sand Lake Elementary School

DETAILS: Wilson has lived in Anchorage since age 11. She said she doesn’t read the newspapers, she only does the crossword puzzles. She said that the 1989 spill did not affect her life and that “it was supposedly hard on our oceans and some of our friends got greedy, it changed their personalities.”

JANETTE L. GARRISON

AGE, HOMETOWN: 46, Palmer

OCCUPATION: Custodian

DETAILS: Garrison moved to Alaska in 1982. Her husband was a setnet fisherman in 1985 and 1986. She said the only thing she knew about the spill is that “the ship hit Bligh Reef. Somebody didn’t turn it.” Exxon attorneys didn’t want her on the jury because they feared she might have a bias against Hazelwood. Judge Holland said, “I think this is a fair-minded lady.”

MARGARET L. JOHNSON

AGE, HOMETOWN: 46, Anchorage

OCCUPATION: Custodian, Anchorage School District

DETAILS: When Johnson came to Alaska in 1969, she worked for a fish processor. She said she doesn’t read the newspapers, so after some time she didn’t give the spill much thought. “Nobody got hurt so I didn’t think more about it.” She likes sports fishing.

KEN S. MURRAY

AGE, HOMETOWN: 42, Anchorage

OCCUPATION: Unemployed college counselor

DETAILS: Murray grew up in Arkansas and moved to Alaska in 1990 from Memphis, Tenn. His wife is a school teacher; he was a counselor at the private Alaska Junior College until he was laid off. He is a member of the Rotary. He said his knowledge of the facts about the grounding were “a little shady right now.” His fellow jurors picked him as their foreman.

http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV63.html

Assistant Attorney General Brent Cole, tackling the biggest case of his career, was more willing to admit weaknesses in the state’s $300,000plus prosecution.

“We knew that of the people we had interviewed nobody would say he was impaired. We felt that the physical evidence was a better determination of that than what people were going to say,” he said.

Juror Sage, a Carrs grocery manager whose sister died in a drunken driving accident several years ago, said the state’s evidence that Hazelwood was drunk made no sense.

Prosecutors relied on a bloodalcohol expert who used a process called “retrograde extrapolation” to calculate backward to midnight from the .061 result of Hazelwood’s 10:30 a.m. blood test. The expert, Richard Prouty, said Hazelwood would have had a blood alcohol count of at least .14 at the time of the grounding. But he also said the blood alcohol concentration at the time of grounding could have been much higher, perhaps as much as .37.

Defense experts said Prouty’s backcalculation process is useless after more than a couple of hours. It had never been used to estimate an alcohol concentration 11 hours before a test.

Sage said the Anchorage jury didn’t want to be the first to convict a person on such speculative grounds.

“I don’t think any juror wanted to stick their neck out that far,” Sage said.

“If Captain Hazelwood is an average Joe . . . he’s going to be practically dead,” Sage said. “He would have had to have 25 to 30 drinks.”

At most, witnesses placed five drinks in Hazelwood’s hand. But, according to the state’s own analysis, Hazelwood would have been dead drunk when the Exxon Valdez put to sea.

“Captain Hazelwood would have had to crawl back to his ship,” while witnesses testified he looked sober “and his commands were clear and concise throughout,” Sage said.

Jurors were not told that Hazelwood had a history of drunken driving convictions and had spent time at an alcohol rehabilitation clinic. And although the .061 blood alcohol concentration exceeded federal standards for operating a vessel, Hazelwood was tried under Alaska laws, which provide more leeway.

Candy Lynne Lightner (born May 30, 1946), was the organizer and founding president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In 1980, Ms. Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter, Cari, was killed by a drunken hit-and-run driver as she walked down a suburban street in California. “I promised myself on the day of Cari’s death that I would fight to make this needless homicide count for something positive in the years ahead” Candy Lightner later wrote.

Candy Lightner is a recipient of the Presidents Volunteer Action Award, an honorary doctorate in humanities and public service, and was the subject of a made-for-television movie, “Mothers Against Drunk Drivers: the Candy Lightner story.” She is the author of “Appalling to capitalize on innocents’ deaths,” Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1991, and co-author (with Nancy Hathaway) of Giving Sorrow Words. NY: Warner books, 1990 and “The other side of sorrow,” Ladies Home Journal, September 1991, 107(9), 150.

The thing to remember here is that this is the Ninth Circuit. Supposedly the most “liberal” in the land. Bullshit. There isn’t even a true progressive/liberal on the SCOTUS.

The CEOs of BIG OIL are the greediest bastards on the planet!