For further inquiries, contact:
Scott Wilson Badenoch, Jr.
Coordinating Monitor
info@trialmonitors.org
202-930-2668

Independent Monitoring Committee Finds Jury In Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace is Not Impartial, Raising Serious Fair Trial Concerns

March 5, 2025

The independent Monitoring Committee has uncovered alarming evidence of jury bias that threatens to undermine the entire legal foundation of the landmark environmental case, Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace. The investigation reveals nearly all jurors with biases that likely would have disqualified them outright in any other courtroom. Bias towards the oil industry and against organizations that oppose the use of fossil fuels, direct and indirect financial ties to the fossil fuel industry, and significant prior exposure to media coverage of the DAPL protests. The perceived bias of the empaneled jury and the continued failure to provide appropriate public access to the trial via livestream, recordings, or timely transcripts, raise significant concerns about judicial integrity and whether the trial meets fundamental legal standards for fairness, impartiality, and transparency.

Documented Biases in Jury Selection

A detailed review of voir dire and juror disclosures reveals:

● Jurors with direct industry ties – Several seated jurors are personally employed in the oil and gas industry, while others have close family members in the sector. Such connections create reasonable doubts about their ability to impartially assess claims involving Energy Transfer and its pipeline interests.

● Preconceived attitudes toward the defendants – Some jurors have expressed negative views about environmental protest movements, with statements indicating a predisposition against Greenpeace and similar organizations. Others have acknowledged difficulty in remaining neutral when evaluating Greenpeace’s role in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

● Prior exposure to case-related media – Jurors admitted to consuming news and social media content about the case, in some instances within the past six months, raising concerns about pre-trial bias and exposure to external narratives that could impact their judgment.

● Denial of motions for venue change – Given the regional prominence of the fossil fuel industry and the demonstrated presence of community bias, multiple motions to change venue were denied despite the clear difficulty of selecting an impartial jury within the current jurisdiction.

Legal Implications for Fair Trial Standards

The identified concerns implicate fundamental fair trial protections under multiple legal frameworks:

● U.S. Constitution (Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments) – Guarantees the right to an impartial jury and due process, both of which are at risk under the present circumstances.

● North Dakota Constitution (Article I, Sections 9 and 12) – Article I, Section 9 of the North Dakota Constitution pertains to the right to a public trial, ensuring transparency and accessibility of judicial proceedings. Article I, Section 12 guarantees the right to an impartial jury and due process.

● International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 14) – Mandates that all individuals are entitled to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal, a standard that is being undermined by the selection of jurors with existing biases.

● American Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) – Reinforces public trial standards adhered to across the Americas, emphasizing due process protections.

Transparency and Public Accountability Remain Critical

The Monitoring Committee further emphasizes that this trial is a civil tort case—primarily a defamation claim—where transparency should be the default standard. Unlike cases involving national security, trade secrets, or the protection of minors, there is no justifiable reason for the extraordinary secrecy imposed by Judge Gion.

Yet, this trial has been marred by opacity at every level:

● No Livestreaming or Media Access – Unlike previous high-profile cases in North Dakota, including criminal trials that carried far greater risks to jurors and witnesses, this court has refused to allow any livestreaming or expanded media coverage.

● Restricted Public Access – The courtroom has limited seating, and no overflow room has been provided despite the case's significance. Those unable to secure a seat—including members of the public, independent legal observers, and journalists—have no alternative means of following proceedings.

● Lack of Online Access to Filings and Transcripts – Legal filings are not posted online in real time, and trial transcripts are only available at least a month after the proceedings, severely limiting the ability of the public and press to stay informed.

● Disparate Treatment Compared to Criminal Cases – North Dakota courts regularly provide livestreams for cases involving serious criminal charges, yet this civil lawsuit—a private corporate dispute with no legitimate claim to secrecy—is being shielded from meaningful public oversight.

● Unwarranted Restrictions on Trial Monitors – Official trial monitors have been subjected to undue restrictions, preventing them from recording proceedings or using modern tools to document trial developments in real time.

Conclusion

This lack of transparency is indefensible in a civil case between private entities and runs counter to the principles of open justice. The Monitoring Committee asserts that the degree of secrecy imposed in Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace not only violates legal norms but raises significant concerns about the fairness and credibility of the proceedings.

The Monitoring Committee finds that the failure to empanel an impartial jury raises serious questions about whether Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace can meet established legal standards for fairness. We underscore that this trial does not appear to meet the internationally recognized requirements for an unbiased tribunal. These findings should be of significant concern to all who believe in the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial system.

The Committee remains committed to its mission of observing and reporting on this trial despite the barriers imposed on public access. We will continue to document these proceedings and advocate for adherence to fair trial principles under both U.S. and international law.