Judge in PG&E criminal trial limits evidence jury can hear

FILE - In this Sept. 9, 2010, file photo, a massive fire roars through a neighborhood in San Bruno, Calif. A federal judge will hear arguments over whether to exclude references to a deadly gas pipeline blast and bar jurors from seeing the exploded pipeline during an upcoming criminal trial against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File) less FILE - In this Sept. 9, 2010, file photo, a massive fire roars through a neighborhood in San Bruno, Calif. A federal judge will hear arguments over whether to exclude references to a deadly gas pipeline blast ... more Photo: Paul Sakuma / Associated Press 2010 Photo: Paul Sakuma / Associated Press 2010 Image 1 of / 4 Caption Close Judge in PG&E criminal trial limits evidence jury can hear 1 / 4 Back to Gallery

Jurors in the criminal trial of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. can hear evidence about the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion — clearly relevant to the charges that PG&E violated pipeline-safety standards and obstructed justice — but won’t hear some of the most graphic details, like the death and devastation it caused to a neighborhood, or view the wrecked pipe itself, a federal judge has ruled.

“Avoiding accidents like the San Bruno explosion is the very purpose of the Pipeline Safety Act” that PG&E is charged with violating, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson said in a decision late Monday over evidence at the upcoming trial. He said the blast also provides “necessary context” for the National Transportation Safety Board’s subsequent investigation of the utility “and PG&E’s potential motives for obstructing it.”

Avoiding prejudice

But Henderson said allowing federal prosecutors to focus on the explosion and its aftermath could prejudice the jury.

“This is not a trial about the San Bruno explosion,” the judge said.

He barred evidence about the deaths, injuries and houses damaged or destroyed by the blast, photos and videos of the scene, and proposed testimony by a firefighter. Henderson also rejected prosecutors’ request to haul the 28-foot-long, 3,000-pound pipe to the front of the courthouse for juror viewing — an exhibit he said would prove little about the facts of the case — but said prosecutors could present photos of the pipe if PG&E disputed the impact of the explosion.

In addition, he granted PG&E’s request to exclude evidence of investigations by both the federal safety board and the California Public Utilities Commission that found the utility at fault for the explosion. The specific cause of the explosion is irrelevant to the federal charges, Henderson said, and if jurors heard that the state commission had ordered PG&E to change its practices, they might assume that “PG&E is deserving of punishment.”

The September 2010 explosion killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in the Crestmoor neighborhood of San Bruno. It triggered a federal investigation that led to a grand jury indictment last April charging PG&E with 12 violations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, which requires operators of gas pipes to maintain accurate records, identify risks to lines, and inspect or test when pipe pressures exceed the legal maximum.

The obstruction charge involves an internal PG&E document that said the company would test older lines for welding problems only if pipe pressure exceeded the federal maximum by 10 percent, leeway that federal law does not allow. PG&E told the federal safety board in March 2011 that the document was only a draft that had never been implemented, but prosecutors said the utility had actually carried out its 10 percent policy to avoid testing lines, and obstructed justice by falsely denying it.

The state Public Utilities Commission has fined PG&E $1.6 billion, a penalty prosecutors are not allowed to mention to the jury. The utility faces fines of up to $500 million if convicted of all criminal charges. No company executives have been indicted. The trial is scheduled to begin April 26 and last six weeks, but PG&E has asked for a postponement to review evidence it says it recently received from the prosecution.

Tentatively allowed

On other issues, Henderson tentatively allowed prosecutors to offer evidence that PG&E cut costs on pipeline safety to enhance its profits, if a government witness can draw connections between PG&E’s expenses and its lack of safety measures.

He also said prosecutors could introduce evidence that PG&E, under orders from the state Public Utilities Commission, upgraded more than 200 miles of pipeline so that it would be easier to inspect and conducted pressure tests on more than 650 miles of pipes after the explosion.

But Henderson rejected a prosecution request to admit evidence that PG&E officials had publicly apologized for the explosion, saying the statements might be taken as admissions of pipeline safety violations.

In another split ruling, Henderson said Leslie McNiece, hired by PG&E in 2012 to improve the company’s flawed record-keeping, could testify for the prosecution about the problems she saw and the resistance she said she encountered from top officials. But he said she wouldn’t be allowed to testify that she was told to destroy documents and found a company map of the San Bruno pipeline in a Dumpster outside her office. The destroyed documents had little apparent connection to the case, and PG&E has copies of the documents McNiece found in the Dumpster, Henderson said.

PG&E on Tuesday did not comment directly on the ruling, but denied intentionally violating safety laws and said it is focusing on “re-earning the trust of the communities we serve.”

San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson said city officials would have preferred the admission of more evidence and the indictment of one or more PG&E officials, but were pleased that Henderson had rejected the utility’s attempt to exclude the explosion from the trial.

“But for the tragedy of San Bruno, there wouldn’t be a trial,” she said.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @egelko