Greenpeace argues that the local jury cannot provide an impartial verdict in its lawsuit against Energy Transfer due to past protests disrupting the community.
**Greenpeace's Legal Battle: A Push for Fairness in the Dakota Access Pipeline Case**
**Greenpeace's Legal Battle: A Push for Fairness in the Dakota Access Pipeline Case**
The environmental group Greenpeace petitions for trial relocation, citing bias in North Dakota jury selection.
The trial involving Greenpeace's defense against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit from Energy Transfer over protests related to the Dakota Access Pipeline has reached a pivotal moment. Greenpeace's attorneys have expressed concerns regarding the jury's impartiality, urging North Dakota’s Supreme Court to relocate the trial to Fargo. The protests in 2016 and 2017 against the pipeline were disruptive and highly publicized, which, according to Greenpeace, compromises the fairness of the proceedings in Morton County.
In their filing, lawyers for Greenpeace stated that the prolonged disruption caused by the protests has left lasting impressions on local jurors. The lawsuit, initiated by Energy Transfer in 2019, claims that Greenpeace instigated protests that delayed the pipeline’s construction and engaged in acts of violence against workers and equipment associated with the project.
Greenpeace firmly denies these allegations, emphasizing that it acted primarily in support of Native American activists promoting nonviolence. The organization asserts its involvement in the protests was minimal compared to the size and scope of the movement that captured international attention.
As jury selection has concluded, Greenpeace's legal team has highlighted discrepancies in the process, noting that the atmosphere surrounding the case indicates an unfavorable environment for a just trial. They argue that the case's high profile and community impact necessitate a reassessment of the trial's location to ensure a fair hearing.
The outcome of this case not only holds significant implications for Greenpeace but also raises broader questions about the intersection of environmental activism, legal accountability, and community perceptions in disputes over major infrastructure projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline.
