The trial of Greenpeace in Mandan, North Dakota, exposed the challenges of jury selection in fossil fuel-centric regions, with over half of jurors connected to the industry and expressing negative sentiments towards anti-pipeline protests. Energy Transfer Partners, the plaintiff, claims Greenpeace orchestrated criminal behavior and defamed them during the Dakota Access pipeline protests, seeking hefty damages. Greenpeace argues there’s no supporting evidence for these claims. The jury selection process demonstrated the significant local bias against the protests, impacting the trial's progress and fairness.
Dozens of potential jurors in an initial pool of about 100, which was whittled down to the final 11 by lawyers from both sides and by the judge, said they held negative views of the pipeline protests.
In his opening, Energy Transfer's attorney said he would prove his allegations that Greenpeace coordinated actions against the pipeline and defamed Energy Transfer.
Collection
[
|
...
]