By: Danny Jacobs

The last time I was in court for the first Exxon trial* it was kind of like Christmas morning (or the first night of Chanukah, if that analogy makes more sense to you). There was a sense of anticipation bordering on giddiness, in part because everyone was awaiting a verdict and because a five-month trial was finally ending.

The mood felt a bit different Wednesday as post-trial motions were heard. The courtroom was still packed, but that was in part because the hearing had been moved to a smaller courtroom. A majority of the plaintiffs who attended were the “die-hards,” the ones I saw almost on a daily basis during the five-month trial; the woman who brought needlepoint during testimony brought it Wednesday, too.  

I greeted a couple of plaintiffs I had gotten to know, including a few I wrote about in the aftermath of the verdict. Many had told me in March the verdict brought closure, so Wednesday’s hearing was, in a way, opening old wounds. But it seemed to me much of the anger and anguish had disappeared, as if the verdict did in fact lift a large weight off residents’ shoulders. In its place was some level of contentment coupled with the resignation (and possibly frustration) that they might be facing a lengthy appeals process before they see any of the $150 million the jury awarded four months ago.

Stephen L. Snyder, the plaintiffs’ lead counsel, touched on that point as he finished his arguments. He theorized that Exxon’s limited arguments on its motions (lead counsel James F. Sanders talked for less than an hour of the four-hour hearing) meant the company felt visiting Judge Maurice W. Baldwin Jr. would not drastically reduce the jury’s verdict, so it would save its arguments for the appellate courts.

“We just hope you’re not going to give Exxon a reduction that they are not expecting to get,” Snyder said.

His clients laughed and applauded.

 *Another set of plaintiffs, represented by The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos P.C., will have their trial in January.