Chavez, Victoria Isabel D.

Environmental Law
Chapter 9: The Trial
On the side of the Woburn families, Schlichtmann is preparing himself for the trial of his
life; on the other hand, Michael Keating, one of Cheeseman’s partners was the one tasked for the
opening statement of the respondent company. Keating contended in the trial that some Grace
employees had spread small amounts of TCE on the ground to evaporate. However, such
admission was followed by the defense that such small amounts was insufficient to cause any
harm to the wells flowing in Woburn. For the side of Beatrice, Facher asseverated that there was
no single to prove that the land had long been contaminated in the 1960s and 1970s; such
contamination was only apparent as of that moment.
During the trial, Schlichtmann presented two expert witnesses, namely, John Drobinski
and a professor from Princeton. The first expert witness, Drobinski, a geologist narrated the
extent of the TCE contamination in the soil of Grace and Beatrice properties and at the time at
which, in his opinion, it had occurred. The second expert witness, a Princeton professor, would
explain how the TCE had percolated into the aquifer and was subsequently drawn by the
pumping action into Wells G and H. Contradicting the statement of Drobinksi, Facher raised that
there was no proper scientific foundation proving that the companies have dumped TCE after the
wells had been closed. Facher even managed to attack the statements of Drobinski concerning
the truthfulness of his degree. Consequently, Facher asked the judge to exclude the opinion of
the first witness expert; such persuasion made the judge to agree with the former. When it was
Riley’s turn to testify, Schlichtmann presented the 1956 report by state health agent A.C. Bolde.
It was said that the latter had ordered Riley to remove six hundred feet of tannery sludge from
the edge of the Aberjona marsh. The said explained Riley’s refusal to the remove the tannery, the
latter even had the audacity to say that he owned the land and could do what he wanted on it.
Despite presenting the 1956 report, it did not go well with Schlichtmann since he was not able to
prove his claims against Riley.
Continuing at the trial of the case against Grace, he called Frank McCann, a former Grace
worker to the witness stand. The said worker had an admission saying that they used TCE to
clean fingerprints and grease off conveyor belts, however, he was adamant in claiming that he
never dumped any waste solvent behind the plant. While the case is on-going, the firm was
experiencing financial struggles, as a result, some expenses for the firm are unpaid, aside from
that Schlichtmann’s Porsche and insurances were on the verge of repossession. The last witness
presented their last expert witness, who is an expert in hydrology, his name is George Pinder.
The latter made miscalculations in his testimony when Facher crossed him. Grace presented
Guswa, another expert witness from their side who was able to provide a scientific method
evidencening that the company did not contaminate the wells. Schlictmann feared that if the
Judge would give credence to the opinion of Guswa, the case might be in favor of the
respondents. With the help of Nesson, Schlichtmann was able to rebut the testimony of Guswa.
Schlichtmann was really persistent to convince the jurors to view the case as he did. He told the
jurors that the evidence was complicated. At the end of his speech, with a pleading sound, he did
an outstanding job at that moment.