A blog post [0] about a month ago explains better why they are on trial:
The prosecution’s closing arguments [...] made it clear that
the scientists are not accused of failing to predict the
earthquake. “Even six-year old kids know that earthquakes can not be
predicted,” he said. “The goal of the meeting was very different:
the scientists were supposed to evaluate whether the seismic
sequence could be considered a precursor event, to assess what
damages had already happened at that point, to discuss how to
mitigate risks.” Picuti said the panel members did not fulfill these
commitments, and that their risk analysis was “flawed, inadequate,
negligent and deceptive”, resulting in wrong information being given
to citizens.
So the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines report...