A magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia recommended granting former Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship's motion to vacate, set aside or correct the coal executive's conviction on counts of conspiracy stemming from an investigation into the explosion of the Upper Big Branch coal mine that resulted in the deaths of 29 coal miners.
Blankenship served a one-year prison term after he was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to violate Mine Safety and Health Administration laws but avoided felony charges prosecutors originally brought against him. In 2018, Blankenship's attorneys filed a motion to vacate and set aside his conviction. On Aug. 26, Magistrate Judge Omar Aboulhosn filed a report of proposed findings and recommendations concluding that admitted errors made by U.S. prosecutors during the discovery phase and trial warrant setting aside Blankenship's conviction.
Aboulhosn wrote that Blankenship contends the U.S. Attorney's Office has produced more than 1,000 additional pages of documents that should have been provided before his trial. The potential exculpatory material included MSHA emails, MSHA disciplinary records and memoranda of interviews that would have proven favorable to Blankenship's case.
"Considering the suppressed evidence collectively, the suppressed evidence could have had some weight and its tendency could have been favorable to [Blankenship]," Aboulhosn wrote. "The undersigned acknowledges that the suppressed evidence does not undisputedly prove [Blankenship's] innocence, but the question is whether the court is confident that the jury's verdict would have been the same. Based upon the undersigned's summary of the suppressed evidence, and the evidence presented by the United States to secure [Blankenship's] conviction, the undersigned does not have confidence in the verdict."
Blankenship has pointed to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility that indicated a flawed prosecution. The case was widely viewed as significant for holding a chief executive responsible for the day-to-day safety operations of his business.
The former coal boss insisted charges against him were based on an aggressive prosecution and dishonest investigations that shifted blame from federal officials. However, the judge did not find actual malice in the prosecutors' actions.
"While [Blankenhip] attempts to ascribe ill motives to the United States and the attorneys that tried the case, the undersigned has found no ill motive in the actions taken during the prosecution of this case," Aboulhosn wrote. "While the United States has admitted that errors were made and further argues reasons as to why those areas don't necessitate the relief sought by [Blankenship], the undersigned has found that those errors were simply that: errors."
Blankenship previously appealed his conviction as high as the U.S. Supreme Court but was not successful in getting his case reviewed. Allegations against the former coal boss were closely related to findings of an investigation of the Upper Big Branch explosion, but his charges did not center on the cause of the explosion.
