CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- State Supreme Court justices should ignore Gov. Joe Manchin's plea for them to hear an appeal of a $196 million punitive damage award against DuPont Co.

That's according to lawyers for residents of a Harrison County town who sued the chemical company.

In a brief filed late Tuesday, lawyers for Spelter residents say Manchin's legal brief "is devoid of any new argument or information that could assist this court."

The lawyers allege Manchin's brief is the result of "improper collusion" between the governor and DuPont and part of  "an orchestrated scheme" by the company.

Manchin general counsel Carte Goodwin filed the governor's "friend of the court" brief June 24, the same day DuPont asked the justices to hear their appeal.

Goodwin adopted the same arguments - and cited the same key cases - in asking the court to give a full appeal hearing not only to DuPont, but also in every case where damages are awarded to punish corporate wrongdoing.

Goodwin did not specifically urge the court to overturn the verdict against DuPont. And he declined the company's requests that he argue that the award was "unfounded and excessive," or an unfair punishment of a good corporate neighbor.

"A West Virginia jury, exercising the sovereign power of the state, has punished [DuPont] severely," Goodwin wrote.

"[The company] now seeks what due process requires - a meaningful, adequate, and de novo review of its nine-figure punishment," Goodwin wrote. "Such an exacting and fresh examination of the record - even if affirmance is warranted - should be provided."

DuPont is fighting the punitive damage award, along with a $55 million cleanup order and a $130 million medical monitoring program in a case over pollution of the community of Spelter with lead, zinc, cadmium and arsenic from a former zinc smelter.

Residents argued that DuPont illegally polluted the community, and then tried to mislead residents and regulators about the extent of the contamination. An 11-person jury agreed.

Manchin's involvement in the case was highlighted Wednesday in a New York Times story that focused on talks between the governor and DuPont officials, and connections between the company and Manchin aides.

Some of those same issues were targeted in the response to Manchin's brief filed late Tuesday afternoon by Charleston lawyer R. Edison Hill, who is handling the appeal for Spelter residents.

Hill noted that Manchin talked to DuPont President Chad Holliday less than a month after the Harrison County verdict, and then met with the company's general counsel, Stacey Mobley, in early June.

That's according to lawyers for residents of a Harrison County town who sued the chemical company.

In a brief filed late Tuesday, lawyers for Spelter residents say Manchin's legal brief "is devoid of any new argument or information that could assist this court."

The lawyers allege Manchin's brief is the result of "improper collusion" between the governor and DuPont and part of  "an orchestrated scheme" by the company.

Manchin general counsel Carte Goodwin filed the governor's "friend of the court" brief June 24, the same day DuPont asked the justices to hear their appeal.

Goodwin adopted the same arguments - and cited the same key cases - in asking the court to give a full appeal hearing not only to DuPont, but also in every case where damages are awarded to punish corporate wrongdoing.

Goodwin did not specifically urge the court to overturn the verdict against DuPont. And he declined the company's requests that he argue that the award was "unfounded and excessive," or an unfair punishment of a good corporate neighbor.

"A West Virginia jury, exercising the sovereign power of the state, has punished [DuPont] severely," Goodwin wrote.

"[The company] now seeks what due process requires - a meaningful, adequate, and de novo review of its nine-figure punishment," Goodwin wrote. "Such an exacting and fresh examination of the record - even if affirmance is warranted - should be provided."

DuPont is fighting the punitive damage award, along with a $55 million cleanup order and a $130 million medical monitoring program in a case over pollution of the community of Spelter with lead, zinc, cadmium and arsenic from a former zinc smelter.

Residents argued that DuPont illegally polluted the community, and then tried to mislead residents and regulators about the extent of the contamination. An 11-person jury agreed.

Manchin's involvement in the case was highlighted Wednesday in a New York Times story that focused on talks between the governor and DuPont officials, and connections between the company and Manchin aides.

Some of those same issues were targeted in the response to Manchin's brief filed late Tuesday afternoon by Charleston lawyer R. Edison Hill, who is handling the appeal for Spelter residents.

Hill noted that Manchin talked to DuPont President Chad Holliday less than a month after the Harrison County verdict, and then met with the company's general counsel, Stacey Mobley, in early June.

Goodwin, who attended the June meeting, said DuPont officials asked the governor then to file a brief in the appeal. Manchin was interested, and may have asked DuPont to provide a draft or other materials outlining the appeal issues, Goodwin recalled.

After the meeting, DuPont provided at least two different draft briefs to the governor's office, according to records obtained by the Gazette under the Freedom of Information Act.

In one draft, DuPont urged the governor to argue that the company was hit with the punitive damages "despite the fact that it spent more than a decade working cooperatively with federal and state regulatory authorities to address environmental issues at the plant site giving rise to the litigation and met every requirement set by these authorities."

"DuPont has behaved responsibly and cooperatively," DuPont urged the governor to say. "If such damages are upheld, it will send a message that West Virginia punishes good corporate citizenship."

Goodwin declined to include those arguments, or any discussion of the merits of the case, in Manchin's friend-of-the-court brief.

Also, Goodwin declined DuPont's suggestion that he defend the state Department of Environmental Protection, which during trial was accused of helping DuPont avoid a more thorough cleanup of the Spelter site. In response to the Gazette's FOIA request, Goodwin's deputy, Jonathan Deem, provided no records to indicate that the governor's office reviewed trial transcripts or otherwise examined DuPont's conduct or DEP's handling of the Spelter case.

But Goodwin did include nearly identical arguments to those presented in a second DuPont draft brief, which urged the court to conduct a complete hearing of all punitive damage award appeals.

Currently, the court does not always agree to hear appeals in such cases. Instead, the court affirms lower court rulings by refusing petitions for appeal, declining to hear the cases.

Goodwin cited a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, also cited by DuPont, as suggesting that the state's procedure was an improper violation of due process rights.

"The value of a detailed, exacting review and opinion is especially salient," Goodwin wrote. "Indeed, it is mandated to ensure that a punitive award is based upon the law, rather than caprice. However, a summary refusal of a petition for appeal provides no such assurances; its reasoning is obscure, its justifications elusive or nonexistent."

On Wednesday, Manchin aides acknowledged receiving the DuPont drafts, but insisted the governor's legal brief was not based on them.

"Yeah, they sent it to us, but what our legal staff put together was not based on that brief, and never was," said Lara Ramsburg, Manchin's communications director.

Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...@wvgazette.com or 348-1702.