Federal Judge in Criminal Case Against Boeing Hears Arguments on October 11, 2024, in Texas Court; Crash Victims’ Families from Several Countries Attend Morning-Long Hearing
The lawyer for the families who lost loved ones in two Boeing crashes of 737 MAX jets argued on October 11, 2024, that the plea deal between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Boeing should not be accepted by the federal district court judge in Texas who is overseeing the criminal matter against the aircraft manufacturing giant.
Paul Cassell, attorney for the families in this case and professor of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, argued before U.S. Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor that the plea deal “rests on an airbrushed set of facts that conceals the truth about this case.” He went on to tell the court that the DOJ and Boeing set the terms of the plea deal as “non-negotiable” and were finalized without consulting the families who have been found to be victims under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
Cassell went on to say that the plea deal does not mention the 346 deaths in the two crashes five years ago and argued for the case to go to trial because the plea deal is “not an appropriate determination of remedial measures” to ensure that these planes that continue to fly are safe. “What fine is commensurate with a crime that kills 346 people?” he asked. Alternatively, Cassell argued that Judge O’Connor should reject this deal and have the parties return with an alternative plea deal that is fairer to the families and the flying public.
“The heart of the matter is that the parties are swallowing the gun,” Cassell said Friday morning. He also told the Court that Boeing failed to provide all relevant facts that go directly to the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history. He pointed to the October 9, 2024, article in The New York Times, “Months Before Ethiopian Crash, Boeing Turned Aside Carrier’s Questions,” by Mark Walker and James Glanz, that revealed that Boeing failed to answer the chief Ethiopian pilot’s questions about the new MAX jet following the first crash in the Java Sea in October 2018. These emails also were not provided to Congress despite congressional officials asking for all pertinent information at several hearings in Washington, D.C. The article stated that answers to these questions could have avoided the second crash five months later.
The plea deal includes a fine that the families say is wholly inadequate to make a statement to Boeing and a monitor appointed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and approved by Boeing without family input. Cassell asked the court to reject the plea agreement with Boeing on nine grounds, including that it is too lenient given the criminal sentencing guidelines and that “it surreptitiously exonerates Boeing’s then-senior leadership.” The families are arguing for an independent monitor to be appointed by the court.
At least 14 family members from various countries were present at today’s hours-long arguments presented to Judge O’Connor. Susan Riffel of California, who lost her two sons, Melvin and Bennett, in the second crash, said following the hearing, “The 170,000 members of the ‘Boeing Family’ didn’t kill our sons; the Boeing executives did. … How is it counterproductive to have an independent monitor? Boeing’s business as usual isn’t working. The DOJ told us what they were planning to propose to Boeing and that it was a non-negotiable offer, and then they negotiated with Boeing. … We want those responsible to be held responsible. Not 170,000 workers, as suggested by the Boeing lawyer today. Boeing is not too big for justice.”
Her husband, Ike, who also attended the hearing, said:
“Our families come back to truth, justice, and accountability. … No one wants Boeing to fail, but we need to get the criminals out of the system. … It seems that DOJ just is interested in getting this case behind them.”
Chris Moore of Canada, who lost his daughter in the crash and who attended today’s hearing, said, “Boeing has always had the privilege of second changes and ‘do overs’ whether it is by way of the FAA’s lack of oversight and ability to assess airworthiness and risk properly or the Justice Department’s lack of integrity. My daughter Danielle and 345 other passengers never got a ‘do over’ after the brand new 737 MAX plane crashed due to Boeing’s criminal acts. The House’s final report found significantly more incriminating facts than the DOJ’s agreement stated. The deal is like Boeing’s MCAS certification plan: half-baked and noncompliant. The plea bargain rehashes the deferred prosecution agreement but leaves out the most important facts that tie the crime to the death of 346 people, for which Boeing should be held to account. The only way for this to occur is to conduct a criminal trial and let all the facts come to light.
“DOJ supported Boeing’s position of minimizing the loss and protection of information. The argument lacked factual support. Given the severity of this case, it should have mandated greater penalties and monitoring. … The DOJ is protecting Boeing’s image, assets, and mitigating its market losses. … The FAA failed to oversee Boeing engineering and production, and they need an independent set of eyes to oversee these areas at Boeing. The plea deal ignores this and the full picture of facts. The House has a more accurate picture of what happened, but the plea deal distorts this,” Moore said.
Nadia Milleron, who lost her daughter Samya in the crash and who also attended today’s hearing with her husband, Michael Stumo, said, “The Department of Justice said that the plea agreement is ‘reasonable and in the public interest,’ but it actually protects Boeing. The Department of Justice is supposed to represent the people of the United States, and by not holding Boeing accountable in any meaningful way, it allows for no consequences and, therefore, repeated bad behavior on Boeing’s part but also on the part of other executives who might threaten human life. Mark Philip, who argued for Boeing said that the FAA is the safety expert, and it is counterproductive to have a safety monitor that that would be conflicting. But actually the FAA needs the pressure of the criminal court to hold Boeing accountable and add additional pressure for safety. In the five years since the crash and this year also especially with the Alaska Air blowout, we can see that FAA oversight is inadequate. The public, through criminal accountability, has to assert greater pressure for safety.”
For further information, contact Clifford Law Offices Communications Partner Pamela Sakowicz Menaker at 847-721-0909 (cell) or pammenaker@cliffordlaw.com.
Various family members who lost loved ones in the Boeing crash speak to the media following Friday’s hearing outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth, Texas.
