PROVIDENCE -- The state won a victory in its lead-paint trial yesterday when Superior Court Judge Michael A. Silverstein ruled that the paint companies could not introduce as evidence three studies by Brown University students that highlight the role of bad landlords and poor maintenance in causing the lead poisoning of Rhode Island children.
Silverstein said the state Department of Health hadn't done much with the studies so he precluded them from the trial.
Yesterday's legal arguments opened the fifth week in the state's trial against eight companies which made lead-based paints decades ago that continue to poison children now.
The state is seeking to prove the paints are a public nuisance. The companies' defense is that their paints were legal when they were marketed and they remain safe when properly maintained.
The three student theses that were debated yesterday were prepared by undergraduate and graduate students working for Prof. Harold Ward, head of Brown's environmental-studies program.
Patrick MacRoy, now an employee of the Health Department, examined the criteria the city of Providence used to target houses for lead-abatement assistance. Marissa Rappaport, a junior last year, did computer-assisted research to find that just 204 landlords own housing units where 2,644 Providence children were poisoned in the last nine years.
Christy Plumer's thesis also was designed to help Providence target its abatement efforts by looking at housing that had previously been cited for environmental violations and those where there were multiple poisonings.
Linn Freedman, one of the state's attorneys, argued that the studies should be barred because the students were not entered as witnesses so they wouldn't be available to cross-examine on their methods.
She also argued their work cannot be compared to the testimony the state presented from nationally recognized lead researchers.
"These are students working under Harold Ward," Freedman said. "They can't rise to the scientific knowledge we have seen from other experts."
John Tarantino, attorney for the paint companies, argued that a Health Department grant application referred to two of the studies, a sign of their legitimacy. But Silverstein pointed out the studies weren't completed until sometime after the application was written.
Later, Silverstein indicated the likelihood that whoever loses this trial will appeal. Exhorting the two sides to get together and agree on what materials should be submitted as evidence, Silverstein said, "We can't have a bare record go to the Supreme Court."
He also announced that he excused a juror yesterday for personal reasons. This was the second juror let go during the lengthy trial. Two weeks ago another was excused because of work conflicts. Silverstein moved an alternate to the six-person jury, leaving just four alternates.
State Health Director Patricia Nolan took the stand yesterday. Today, the state plans to bring back Dr. Herbert Needleman, the dean of the nation's lead poisoning researchers. He will be the state's last witness.
Dr. Nolan testified that state officials don't expect so-called "lead-safe" houses to stay safe. In fact, lead-safe certificates are granted for only one year because it's expected underlying lead paint will continue to deteriorate and cause hazards, she said.
Asked whether she could tell by looking at a house whether it was safe, she said no. "The outside of a house doesn't tell you whether the inside is safe."
