Grace files motions to dismiss charges

Lawyers for W.R. Grace have filed a number of motions in U.S. District Court seeking to have criminal charges dismissed against seven employees or former employees.

Eight motions were filed Dec. 15 in federal court in Missoula asking the court to dismiss criminal charges. In February 2005, a federal grand jury returned a 10-count indictment against the multi-national corporation and seven company officials with crimes stemming from Grace's Libby vermiculite mining and mill operations.

District court Judge Donald Molloy has agreed to hold a hearing Feb. 14, 2006 to hear oral arguments on the company's motions.

The first request to dismiss charges is based on grounds of duplicity. The company's lawyers are arguing that one count of an indictment many not charge a defendant with more than one crime.

The second and third motions seeks to dismiss three charges against the company and against the seven employees or former employees based on statute of limitations and duplicity. The fourth filing requests three charges be dismissed because the indictment fails to "allege the defendants alleged release of asbestos breached an emission standard for asbestos set by EPA."

The fifth motion by Grace says the government failed to sufficiently inform the defendants of the nature of the offense charged. The sixth filing says the indictment fails to allege knowledge of unlawful conduct while the seventh and eighth filings are challenging the government's accusation of wire fraud.

Indictments in the case were handed down in February. The trial was initially scheduled for May 2006, but in a March 15 scheduling order Judge Molloy set a new date of Sept. 11, 2006.

Malloy has scheduled a status conference on Feb. 14, 2006 to discuss issue of the upcoming trial and has agreed to hear oral arguments on Grace's motions.

Also, Malloy has yet to rule on a request by Grace for a change of venue citing "inflammatory" press coverage making impossible to find an unbiased jury in the state. The federal judge had given the government and Grace attorney until; Dec. 19 to submit written arguments.

The government attorneys argued that publicity about the actions of the company and the impact on the community of Libby has quieted down since the story first gained national attention in 1999 and 2000. U.S. Attorney Bill Mercer argued that the U.S. Constitution requires that the case be held within the state in which the crimes occurred. Mercer noted that Grace's expert on pre-trial publicity did not look at press clippings from the City of Billings and that publicity in Great Falls and Butte was far less than Missoula.

The judge has not given any indication as to when he would rule on the venue change request.