Coast Guard Witnesses Curbed in Oil Spill Prosecution

A refusal by the federal government to allow Coast Guard officials to testify as experts dealt a potential setback Monday to efforts to prosecute the owners of vessels involved in a 1991 oil spill in Los Angeles Harbor.

At a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against a South Korean company and two Long Beach corporations, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney said federal regulations limit the testimony that Coast Guard personnel can provide.

The case, brought jointly by the Los Angeles County district attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney, involved the first felony charges filed under the state’s Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, passed in 1990.

The Coast Guard was the principal investigator of the 12,000-gallon spill on Jan. 8, 1991, when the tanks on the Korean ship overflowed during refueling. The testimony of its officers is key to the case against Pan Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. of Seoul, its American representative, Panobulk America Inc. of Long Beach, and the fuel barge owner, Links Marine Inc. of Long Beach.

But Stephen R. Campbell, an attorney for the Department of Justice, appeared before Municipal Court Judge Jon M. Mayeda to say that under federal regulations, Coast Guard employees may only testify, “as to facts, (but) may not testify as an expert or opinion witness.”

Since the Coast Guard had been cooperating with prosecutors, “this is a surprise, at this late hour,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. David Eng outside of court.

At issue was how much Coast Guard officials could say about the facts. One official, for example, is an oil “fingerprint” expert who analyzes spill samples and determines their source. The testimony is important because Pan Ocean contends that the bulk of the oil spilled actually came from another vessel.

The Coast Guard analyst concluded that Pan Ocean was responsible, but he may not be able to say so. Deputy City Atty. Vincent Sato, co-prosecutor on the case, said: “It’s unclear to me at this point if we will get that. That would be a setback in that it would further delay the proceedings.” Another expert would have to be found, he said.