Appeal Denied

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has denied the defendant’s appeal, which challenged (among other points) the constitutionality of the Torture Act. The decision is available on the court’s website: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910461.pdf

October 28, 2008 – Afternoon Session (Government’s Rebuttal: approx. 1 hour 15 min.)

Ms. Heck Miller began the Government’s rebuttal by thanking the jury for their attention and acknowledged that the case was a difficult one as it involved acts of torture and which did not take place in the U.S. She reminded the jury that during voir dire, they each said they could be fair in judging acts outside of the U.S.; the argument that this isn’t a case for today should be laid to rest and the jury should deal with the facts as they exist. Ms. Miller then turned to the arguments Mr. Caridad raised, addressing each in turn but sometimes trailing off into the podium as she reviewed the next item on her list.

Ms. Miller was dismayed by Mr. Caridad’s “other-izing” of the victims, saying he stereotyped the witnesses in implying the jury could not relate to them and the accusations from “that type of person.” With a voice that seemed to crack with emotion, she reminded the jury that “their bodies are NOT different from ours” – fire burns…cuts hurt… She then questioned whether Mr. Caridad’s description of a particular witness as “living it up” was accurate – or if that witness struck the jury as “a man of profound sorrow.” Ms. Miller also reminded the jury that another of the Government’s witnesses has lived in Liberia since 1999 because, in his words, “home is best for me.”

Ms. Miller encouraged the jurors to use their common sense in judging the facts. She then addressed several of the defense’s closing arguments, noting that: 1) in hindsight, any escape seems unlikely and later accounts seem improbable; 2) a witness may have been in a weakened state at the time, but was able to lift the log to “run the rim” because his life depended on it; and 3) newspaper evidence (the heavily redacted articles) shows the Taylor government was susceptible to outside pressure. She noted that the testimony of a journalist also served as independent corroboration of the other witnesses’ accounts.

Ms. Miller turned to the issue of the relationship between the co-conspirators – noting that they need not always be friendly toward each other in order to still be considered conspirators; the fact that Defendant’s father threw Defendant out for a few weeks did not undermine the fact they were co-conspirators. She then explained that when President Taylor forbade Defendant from killing the witnesses, Defendant “upped” the beatings out of frustration. The timing of this intense beating also explains how the witnesses escaped from the pit prison; the beating and treatment that led to temporary paralysis took place AFTER sharpening the spoon to escape.

Ms. Miller rebutted Defendant’s argument that it was highly improbable that the Defense Minister would intervene on the witnesses’ behalf by explaining he likely sought to modulate President Taylor’s rage and was suggesting that the witnesses be killed elsewhere. She reminded the jury of the testimony that President Taylor was a “schemist,” meaning he was a calculating person who may well have decided to send them to Barclay to be killed there. Ms. Miller commented that Defendant’s attempt to imply during cross that the witnesses should have asked – as they were being tortured – what evidence Defendant had against them was unreasonable (to say the least).

Presumably addressing the issue of why the witnesses were not killed after attempting to escape, Ms. Miller noted that a solider who had attempted to escape was not killed either; instead, he was dragged behind a truck as punishment. When he attempted to escape a second time, he was “re-dragged” behind a truck. She also noted that early in the history of the camp, the guards were not yet on alert for escape attempts so were not patrolling the pits as carefully.

Regarding Mr. Caridad’s skepticism that President Taylor would take interest in the escapees, Ms. Miller noted that three men from Sierra Leone – not just the escapees – were brought before President Taylor.

Ms. Miller argued that the jurors should not expect more witnesses from the Government; the five they offered were sufficient as the allegations in the indictment only concern those five. She also noted that, contrary to Mr. Caridad’s statements, Defendant did not “readily admit” to witnessing the abuse of the “press guy;” in fact, he feigned ignorance before making a half-admission/half-self-serving statement. Ms. Miller reminded the jury that Defendant admitted that he had been schooled in the Geneva Conventions, so, she argued, would know to proceed cautiously in speaking with authorities about torture.

Ms. Miller reminded the jury that Defendant’s witnesses testified both that they did not see the events at issue take place *and* were not continuously at the places were those events took place. She reminded the jury that Mama Tarso (who testified through an interpreter) said that people fled when they heard gunfire; thus, they would not be present to witness anything. Ms. Miller also noted that at least one witness said survivors of the conflict did not seek out information about the soldier’s acts as it was “not healthy to talk about.”

As to the assertion that the Government’s witnesses were lying, Ms. Miller questioned why a witness would come to the U.S. from Sweden to testify if it were merely to expose more of his own lies? She later noted that lying in order to help someone else leave Africa was different than coming to a foreign country to testify about the events at issue in this trial. She noted that the Government’s witnesses were not friends, yet gave remarkably similar testimony.

Regarding the suggestion that the Government had not conducted a thorough investigation, Ms. Miller noted that the jury had seen plenty of evidence on the witnesses’ bodies, including having the same circumferential scars on their elbows that could not be from anything but tai bae. She added that the doctor gave “scientific” testimony regarding whether the witnesses’ injuries match their accounts. Ms. Miller next noted that no testimony had been given regarding the extent of the Government’s investigation; Defendant did not put any investigative agents on the stand and no evidence supports Defendant’s allegations of investigative failures.

Ms. Miller chalked the issue of inconsistencies between witnesses’ testimony up to “human nature,” telling the jury that they would see some differences in recollection in their own deliberations. Ms. Miller argued that these inconsistencies were minute and unimportant. She reminded the jury that, as they were being tortured, the witnesses were in great pain and did not have watches; it does not make sense to expect them to make the same estimates of time.

As to the assertion that one witness fabricated a story just to obtain health care, Ms. Miller noted that the witness did not know he was infected until 2005, when he had already left Liberia and gave statements to the Government.

Regarding the accuracy of the indictment as to whether three or four people were shot at the checkpoint, Ms. Miller argued it was logical to list only three, since the witnesses agreed there were at least three victims. She noted that the details people remember of horrific events may differ.

Ms. Miller then reminded the jury that each count in the indictment was separate from others; any suspicions the jury had about one witness should not impact their view of others. Repeating a phrase from Defendant’s opening, she noted that the witnesses were *not* “desperate and disgruntled;” they were middle class.

Ms. Miller concluded by telling the jury they had “heard enough;” the Government’s case was not based on innuendo – the Government had provided “impartial” and “clear” evidence to support its case. Ms. Miller then told the jury that, as she enters the new federal courthouse each day [the Ferguson courthouse opened earlier this year], the “most amazing thing” is the wall of water outside the main entrance. [An impressive stone wall with a waterfall.] Full of emotion yet still composed, Ms. Miller then quoted a verse from Amos: “Let justice roll down as waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” and encouraged the jury to let those waters wash out the filth from the prison pits and wash away the tears Defendant had caused by finding Defendant guilty on all counts.

[The Court then read the jury instructions and dismissed the jury for the day at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts the following Thursday, October 30, 2008.]

Verdict: Guilty

The jury has announced its verdict: guilty on all counts.  Here is the story from the Miami Herald.

October 28, 2008 – Afternoon Session (Defendant’s Closing: approx. 2 hours)

The defense’s closing was less confrontational and defensive than its opening. Mr. Caridad, on behalf of Defendant, tried to connect to the jury by acknowledging that, unlike the lawyers or the jurors in the courtroom, the Government’s witnesses had had extremely difficult experiences. However, Mr. Caridad emphasized, the jurors should not forget that the witnesses had incentive to get out of Africa and that, when their stories are “broken down,” they “don’t make sense.”

Mr. Caridad began his closing argument by telling the jury they “were not brought here to hear the same stories over and over again,” told on the stand by the witnesses and by the Government and they were not brought here to be shocked. Mr. Caridad told the jurors they need not believe the witnesses’ stories simply because they have marks on their bodies; instead, the jurors need to decide whether Defendant is responsible for those marks.

Mr. Caridad then turned the jury’s attention to the witnesses’ current conditions, saying: one of the Government’s witnesses is “prospering in Chicago,” while another lied to the UN and is now living in Sweden, even though Sierra Leone has been at peace for five years. What do the witnesses have in common? Most live in modern, developed countries – or “can do so at the drop of a hat.”

Mr. Caridad then stated that the jurors cannot rely on the witnesses’ accounts of what happened during a tragic era in Liberia’s history. He reminded the jurors that the events in the case took place nine years ago and (seeming to contradict his earlier statement about Sierra Leone now being at peace) said all of the witnesses have an incentive to get out of Africa. He clarified that the defense is not saying the witnesses aren’t victims – after all, they lived in West Africa during a difficult time and have “more marks on their bodies than you or I will ever have.” Mr. Caridad noted that the defense does not wish any harm to the witnesses, but emphasized that the decision to grant them asylum did not involve the protection of the U.S. Constitution; in other words, while the witnesses’ accusations might be sufficient to allow them to allow them to leave Africa, they are not – the defense argues – reason to put Defendant before a federal judge for sentencing.

Mr. Caridad then turned to the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence, asking, “If this crime had occurred last year in Miami, what evidence would you expect?” He outlined the extensive investigative evidence one might expect, then argued that it’s not fair to say, “But this happened nine years ago in Liberia!” He told the jury not to assume there is no evidence remaining to be found – “the answer is that the evidence isn’t there.”

After briefly reviewing the history of the groups involved in Liberia’s conflict, Mr. Caridad turned to the discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimony. First, he noted that one witness said three people were killed at the St. Paul checkpoint, while another says four people were killed. According to Mr. Caridad, “If they can’t get that right, you can’t trust anything else they say!” Other discrepancies included whether the witnesses were kept at the police station for hours or days and whether Defendant was present when they were captured after escaping.

Mr. Caridad then stated, “This story makes no sense when you break it down to its parts.” He questioned how people could be killed at the checkpoint in broad daylight, arguing that NGO workers would be present and noting that the Government did not provide any witnesses – such as Red Cross workers – to the incident. Returning to the issue of whether three or four people were killed, Mr. Caridad argued that the indictment was wrong about “the death of a human being.” He argued that the witnesses would lie about the number of men killed in order to “raise their hand high enough” to get the attention of the UN and to get out of Africa.

Mr. Caridad then questioned how a witness could escape with a spoon when he still lacked strength to lift his daughter four months after being released. After asking how the witness could have the strength to sharpen the spoon, Mr. Caridad concluded, “That did not happen.” He argued that the witnesses “ratcheted up” their allegations about Defendant in order to escape Africa, but were inconsistent in their accounts. For example, one witness said Abu Cole was killed by one man alone, while another said two men held Cole while a third sawed off his head. According to Mr. Caridad, “Something is fishy.”

Mr. Caridad then implied that two witnesses inflated their own importance in claiming President Taylor asked for the “two men who escaped.” “Why were these two so famous?” He also questioned how, after escaping, the witnesses happened to stumble into Defendant himself. Mr. Caridad reminded the jurors that they need not decide who is telling the truth – only whether the evidence proves the Government’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. He then said the testimony sounded like something out of a movie – for example, a call coming from the President, just as the witnesses were about to be killed or the Minister of Defense telling President Taylor to interrogate the men instead of killing them. Mr. Caridad questioned why the ATU would spend so much time on these witnesses instead of simply killing them.

Mr. Caridad asked if the witnesses lied [to the UN] to get a woman out of Africa, wouldn’t they lie to get themselves out? He acknowledged that the witnesses had been “damaged” and “something happened,” but asserted there was no proof of what or by whom. He stated that the Government selected these witnesses because they had family or friends to back up their stories.

Mr. Caridad noted that the doctor who testified saw the witnesses on May 20 – three weeks *after* their release. He later noted that the Government provided a doctor’s testimony because it was concerned by the lack of physical evidence. This doctor’s testimony, Mr. Caridad noted, confirmed the marks were consistent with the witnesses’ stories, but did not show that Defendant caused those marks. Mr. Caridad argued that the doctor became an “advocate on the stand” because he thought the witnesses had suffered; Mr. Caridad said there is no question whether they suffered – the question is who caused that suffering.

Mr. Caridad then questioned whether the Government had thoroughly investigated and, if so, why certain witnesses were not called. He asked, for example, why the Government had not spoken to Caroline Van Buren, why they had not obtained more medical records, why Cole’s family did not appear to testify, why no one tried to lift the log that had allegedly been used to “run the rim,” and whether the Government attempted to find human remains at the prison site.

Mr. Caridad stated that the defense witnesses had no incentive to lie, while the Government witnesses were granted asylum long before the case began. He then (perhaps unbeknownst to the jury) ridiculously oversimplified the process of seeking asylum in the U.S. by saying “if you feel threatened, you get to stay [here].” Mr. Caridad then oversimplified the U.S. health care system, saying that while HIV is “death sentence” in Africa, the witness who is HIV-positive “gets as much medicine as he needs” as a refugee.

Mr. Caridad stated that the witnesses were able to describe the base based on the information they heard from others or in the press coverage. He argued no conspiracy existed; the events at issue were just people acting “here or there.” According to Mr. Caridad, the only statements that make sense are the ones Defendant made in speaking to U.S. agents at the airport, in which he admitted that some of his men were responsible for wrongful killings.

Mr. Caridad then asked how the jurors could judge the witnesses when they don’t “talk like us” and don’t “live among us.” He suggested that the jurors ask themselves whether the witnesses said “one thing one day” and “another on another.” Mr. Caridad then reviewed examples of inconsistencies between the witnesses’ interviews with the Government and what they mentioned during one interview and not another.

Mr. Caridad then concluded that there may be cases that should be brought under the Convention Against Torture – but argued this case is not one of them. He noted again the lack of physical evidence, then stated, “This case is warped… disfigured because of that.” He argued that the appropriate response to the Government’s case is “not to let [them] off easy;” instead, the jury should find Defendant not guilty and require the Government to “try harder next time.” (Note: This statement implies the Government should try harder in its next case; under the doctrine of double jeopardy, Defendant cannot be tried again for these same charges if he is found not guilty.)

October 28, 2008 – Morning Session (Government’s Initial Closing: 1 hour 18 minutes)

After the Court told the jury not to take notes during the closing arguments (arguments are not evidence), the Government began its closing, saying the case involved “extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel abuses.” Overall, the initial closing was a straight-forward summary of the testimony heard over the past several weeks and provided a timeline of relevant events, while noting what evidence supported each count in the indictment.

Ms. Rochlin, on behalf of the Government, briefly told the jury that it met each of the elements of its case – interspersing some definitions (e.g., “under color of law” and “conspiracy”) as needed. The Government then reminded the jury of Defendant’s history – from his birth in the United States through the graduation of the first ATU class in December 1999. The Government discussed the recruitment of refugees from Sierra Leone and fact that recruits were used to construct the Gbtala base, with its hole cells in a swampy area.

The Government emphasized that it had put on an assortment of witnesses – most who were unconnected prior to this case and some who were compelled to testify, while others were not.

After summarizing the events at the St. Paul checkpoint (i.e., the stopping of the trucks, the shootings and beheadings, and tying of prisoners for transport to the police station), the Government also emphasized that the conduct at issue was NOT that of a general arrest; it was conduct intended to cause extreme pain and suffering. The Government reiterated that its witnesses were unconnected, yet had provided similar testimony regarding the treatment to which they were subjected in the pits. Noting that while we cannot know what is in a person’s heart (i.e, their intent), we can look to their actions – and the Defendant’s alleged instruction to behead a man from the back of the neck to the front rather than simply shooting him shows, the Government argued, the Defendant’s intent.

The Government then summarized the testimony of each witness, using photographs of the witnesses’ injuries as relevant. The Government reminded the jury that the Defendant had admitted that he witnessed the “press guy” being burned with a clothing iron, which was consistent with the testimony of one of the Government’s witnesses. The Government continued with a summary of the various forms of torture at Clay Junction to which witnesses had testified (staring into a blinding light, sodomy with an electrified rod, burning with a clothing iron, and other beatings with hands and boots).

The Government ended its initial closing by asking the jury to consider ALL of the evidence presented (i.e., the consistencies in witnesses’ testimony regarding locations, methods, uniforms the soldiers wore, etc. and the scars still on the bodies of several witnesses) in determining whether the Government had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Reminding the jury to use common sense in applying the “reasonable doubt” standard, the Government told the jury that when all the evidence is considered, it could reach only one verdict: guilty.

October 27, 2008 – Afternoon Session

The afternoon session today was fairly uneventful. The Defense rested its case and the jury was dismissed, with instruction to return Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. The parties then addressed a few outstanding issues before turning to the jury instructions. These issues, the party who raised each one, and the outcome are:

Defendant: requested that Investigator Weinstein be allowed to testify as to what two
“missing” witnesses *would* have said in court. Government opposed on grounds that their absence might relate to the substance of their testimony, in addition to the fact there would be no opportunity for cross-exam. Court: Request denied.

Defendant: requested that his right to remain silent extend to the colloquy – as in, he didn’t want to answer ANY questions. As Defense counsel acknowledged in making the request, it is standard court practice to perform the colloquy (to ensure a defendant understands his/her right to testify on his/her own behalf before he/she waives that right). The Court explained that the colloquy must be on the record, so asked Defendant the standard questions. Defendant nodded to each question (e.g., “Do you understand that you have a right to testify even if your counsel has advised you not to…?”), but made no audible response.

The parties then turned to the jury instructions and made slight changes to several of the Government’s proposed instructions, including 12 (definition of conspiracy), 17 (carrying a firearm), 14 (definition of torture – which was changed slightly to incorporate Defendant’s suggested definition based on the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) definition, but not to include the definition in the now-rescinded 2001 DOJ memo), 20 (investigative methods), and 16 (Count 8 and conspiracy).

The parties agreed that both sides would have 2 ½ hours for their closing arguments.

Closing arguments tomorrow

The prosecution and defense will make their closing arguments on Tuesday, October 28, beginning at 9:30 am.

Afternoon Oct. 23 Defense Witnesses

The afternoon session of the trial began with a witness named Mr. Smith.  Mr. Smith is a farmer and minister of a church in Waterside, Liberia.  The witness said he was born in Waterside and was living there in 1999.  He was asked if he knew Chucky Taylor and he said that he had seen him from a distance in 1999 and only saw him once. He had heard Chucky was the President’s son. The defense attorney asked if the witness had ever seen Chucky tie someone near Waterside, shoot someone, order to cut someone’s head off, ordered someone to be shot, or seen severed heads in Waterside to which the witness answered “no” to all.  Then the Government Prosecutor asked the witness some questions. Then in redirect the defense attorney asked if the witness had talked with people at church and under the plum tree. He said he had and did choir practice and fundraising with the church. The defense attorney then asked if anyone ever told him that they had seen severed heads at the gate at Waterside to which he said “no.”

The defense attorney then called a witness named Ms. Tarso who also lives in Waterside, Bong County, in Liberia. The witness had trouble understanding the D.A.’s questions and so a translator had to be used. The translator was suffering from laryngitis which made the translations a bit more difficult to understand. The witness said she had lived in Waterside for 30 years and was not married as her husband had died in a war but had 5 children. She earns her living by selling food that she cooks in her home.  She would cook the food and walk it to people. From the house where she lived in 1999 she could see the checkpoint.  It was only the distance from one side of the courtroom to the other. She said there were “too plenty” refugees coming across the bridge into Waterside. She was asked if she helped the refugees and said that she gave them whatever they wanted and did nothing else for them. She said they came all day and all night. She said in 1999 she saw Chucky Taylor in Waterside twice.  The first time she was behind a bush cutting and heard soldiers running and heard a big man coming so she came out and saw soldiers that were running then standing and the big man was talking. He looked like a white man she said. He was far from her but the people said it was Chucky. She said he went back again another time and when he got to the gate he got down from a car and there were soldiers there. He had a kitchen there and was talking to the soldiers. She said “we civilians had to stand far.”  After talking he got in the car and moved. They had brought rice for all the people that were there. She was asked as the previous witness was whether she had ever seen Chucky shoot anyone, cut someone’s head off, or see heads displayed at the checkpoint to which she also responded in the negative. She also said that she never heard from friends or neighbors that people had seen severed heads at the checkpoint. The prosecutor then questioned the witness with the help of the translator. The witness said that she would often run away and come back again to Waterside. She said that “all of us” ran away. When they would hear gunshots and that people were coming they would run away. If fighting was coming they would leave. When asked if she ran away from Waterside in 1999 she said that she used to go away for a week and then return. The refugees (IDP’s) would come through Waterside fleeing from the fighting. She was asked who the previous president of Liberia was and said she had heard it was Charles Taylor but had never seen him. That at that time she wasn’t there. She said she was with her husband and heard war was coming so went to Guinea and stayed a long time there.

The Defense’s third and last witness that afternoon was a man named Peewee. Peewee lived a 5 minute walk from Waterside. He said in 1997 the president was Charles Taylor.  His current job is as a farmer and in 1999 was also a farmer. He said he would not go to his farm everyday because of war. He was shown a picture of writing on a wall that said “Mission Possible Base” with a symbol of a scorpion below it. He said he saw the symbol for the first time in 1997. Many IDP’s were coming because of war. They walked with loads on their heads.  When asked if the witness knew who Chucky Taylor was he responded that he was the President’s son.  He said he had seen him come to Waterside one or two times. He said that Chucky had brought food for the soldiers. The witness was also asked about seeing severed heads at the checkpoint to Waterside and responded that he had not. Then the Prosecution asked him some questions relating to the seasons they went by there and what his definition or understanding of what a year was. The prosecutor asked if it was true that they didn’t want to talk about the things the soldiers did. He agreed that it was not something the people liked to talk about.

After the witness and jury were dismissed for the day the defense attorney informed the court that they would likely rest their case in 2 or 3 more court days and so expected closing in the upcoming week.  The defense attorney also requested to show as evidence to the jury how witnesses are paid and fed and the government had no objection.

Wednesday, 10-22-08 1:45pm-4:30pm

The afternoon section continued with the cross examination of Malba Kamara by attorney Caridad. Through the testimony of the witness, the court learned that he was arrested by ATU soldiers and released from prison in late 2000. Upon his release, the witness testified to being afraid to go home and that he preferred to be amongst people. As a result, he decided to stay at his business which had an apartment attached to the building.

He went on to tell the court that upon his release from prison, he was told that he had to report to the executive mansion daily. He reported to the mansion on Monday and Tuesday with his uncle and Liberian lawyer but that on Wednesday he did not report to the mansion. The witness’ absence from the mansion on Wednesday was due to President Charles Taylor’s speech over the radio. The witness said that the president seemed angry and that his message implied that he would re-arrest the prisoners and that they would be beaten if found. The witness in fear of being re-arrested or killed met with a man name David Parker. The witness asked Mr. Parker for help and told him that he was afraid for his life. Mr. Parker then placed the witness in the trunk of his car and after one unknown stop, the witness testified that they ended up in a forest. He told the court that once he was at the forest, he saw his wife and son and that it wasn’t until they crossed the border in Guinea that they spoke to one another. The witness said that he only asked Mr. Parker for help and he had no idea that he would bring him, his wife, and child to the border to cross into Guinea.

Once at Guinea, the witness said that he went to visit the UN Embassy and they put him in contact with a UN officer. The UN took the witness and his family and put them up in a hotel for some time but that later they were moved to Ghana because Guinea was no longer safe for them. The witness and his family did not remain in Ghana, and later were sent to the United States.

The defense tried to get the witness to admit that he filled out an application for a United States visa while he was in Ghana but the witness said that what he did know not what he signed because he has poor eye sight and that he did not have a problem signing papers from people who were helping him. He needed help and would sign what he needed to get it. The witness lives in United States now and has a business here and has reactivated his business in Liberia. The defense attorney kept questioning the witness why he did not start his own business in Ghana and the witness said because he was afraid and did not know where to start and was not focused on starting a business at that point,

On re-direct the State just re-addressed what was talked about earlier and cleared up any confusion.

The second and last witness to take the stand for the afternoon portion was Dr. Bruce Hyma. He told the court what Mr. Kamara told him when he met with him for examination. The Dr. spoke about the arrest of the witness and some of the severe injuries he told the doctor he encountered.

The Court was shown various pictures of Mr. Kamara. The pictures range from photos of scars, the bullet wound on the shoulder, burns on the inner thigh, and damage done to the genital area. The Dr. stated that the wounds that appeared on Kamara body and his medical records corroborated Kamara’s story.

Defense attorney Caridad on cross examination, talked about reports of two other Dr.’s that examined Kamara. Dr. Hyma did not understand their reports and told the court they were ambiguous. Defense counsel implied that maybe Kamara’s wounds happened after 2002 and were not done by ATU soldiers and that all the Dr. had was Kamara’s statements and that the wounds cannot be accurately dated. Dr. Hyma admitted that anything was possible but that based on Kamara’s medical records and what he saw for himself, Kamara’s story seems credible. Dr. Hyma informed the court that if Kamara was lying down on a table as oppose to standing up, his scrotum would appear normal and maybe that was a possible reason for the ambiguity for the reports.

Court was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

After the jury was excused for the day, attorney Caridad expressed his concern about being able to present witnesses tomorrow. The judge told the attorney that he could find a way to get into contact with at least five of the witnesses and that she will proceed with trial tomorrow at 9am.

Thursday Afternoon Oct. 16

I arrived for the afternoon session of the day’s proceedings at which time a Border Protection Officer was on the stand being asked questions by one of the federal prosecutors. He was being asked about the contents of Mr. Emmanuel’s (the defendant’s) luggage. When the prosecutor finished her questioning of the officer the defense attorney quickly asked the officer several questions in regards the luggage taken into custody at the airport when Chucky Taylor was arrested.

Next Special Agent Baechtle of the Department of Homeland Security came to the stand. He identified himself as an ICE case agent. The Agent flew into Miami from D.C. to await the defendant’s arrival into Miami International Airport.  He was to meet with another agent who had a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. On March 30, 2006 the defendant arrived into Miami from Trinidad. The Agent asked Mr. Emmanuel if he would speak with him. The defendant agreed and they made small talk on the way to the immigration booth. Then they went to baggage claim and the defendant’s baggage was turned over to Mr. Smith.  Next Agent Baechtle, Special Agent Mallone, and the defendant went into the customs office where Mr. Emmanuel was advised of his rights and that he was subject to a federal arrest warrant.

From the time that Mr. Emmanuel was taken into custody at the airport and in the customs office he was not restrained or handcuffed. The Agent testified that normal procedure when arresting someone at an airport with a warrant is for the CBP to handcuff the individual being put under arrest. However, since Taylor had agreed to talk with them before they got a waiver of that process.

The interview in the customs office lasted approximately three hours. Prior to questioning the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights and signed a waiver of rights form. The Agent told the court of his interview with Mr. Emmanuel aka Chucky Taylor. He said that the defendant stated that his name was Charles Macarthur Emmanuel and was born in Boston, Massachusetts. The Agent had asked the defendant if he had ever used or had any other names to which he replied that in school he used Roy Belfast but he did not say anything about Charles Taylor Junior or Chucky Taylor. The defendant told the Agent that his mother was born in Trinidad and lived in Orlando, Florida.  He said he had been in Trinidad working for the past several years. When asked about his biological father Charles Taylor, he was asked if his father was the former president of Liberia to which he said “You’re making a jump.” But later nodded yes in response. On the passport application he thought he put down Daniel Smith as his father’s name. The Agent asked why and he said he thought his “pops” used that name a while back in Massachusetts. His biological father was born in Africa but on the passport application he said that he thought he put down St. Vincent, an island in the Caribbean.

The defendant said that he first went to Liberia in 1992, when he was 15 years old. He went for three months. It was the first time since he was 3 years old that he had seen his biological father Charles Taylor. His father was head of the NPFL and his title was Unit 100. Unit 100 meant he was the head. His father was living in Banga at the Central Agriculture Research Institute (CARI). He was there during the buildup of “Octopus.” Banga was the headquarters of NPFL at that time.

On the defendant’s second trip to West Africa he went to Ghana and met his father there several times. He was there for 4 or 5 months. Then went back to Liberia about 9 months prior to moving with his father to Monrovia in around 1995. He said he primarily lived in West Africa from 1994-2000. While there he learned how to strip down an AK-47.

There was a peace deal signed and an interim government put into place in Monrovia which is when him and his father moved to Monrovia.  He said he started going to school at the College of West Africa. The defendant told the Agent that he fought with Edwin Snow, his brother-in-law and because of the fight he had a disagreement with this father and his dad put him in jail for 2 weeks.

In 1997 his father was elected President after which the defendant got involved in the rubber and timber industry. After the election his father was guarded by the SSS (Special Security Service) headed by Benjamin Yeaten. The defendant denied being a member of the SSS or of any unit but was privy to their activities. He did say that he was involved and responsible for the construction of Gbatala base which was a training base for the ATU (Anti-Terrorist Unit).   He likened the ATU to the US Secret Service. The function was as the presidential security force. The ATU comprised of the toughest fighters out there who had 5 to 6 years of fighting or war experience. He said he was considered to be the commander of the ATU and had an advisory role. He had 9 ATU bodyguards that he commanded.  After 2000 a man named Momojiba was the commander of the ATU. Before 2000 it was the defendant’s “Pet Project.”

There was an incident where Chucky Taylor’s driver had damaged his car after which the defendant ordered his ATU bodyguards to arrest and detain the driver. The bodyguards took matters into their own hands and beat him to death. He had overzealous bodyguards who sometimes did things that were “out of line.”  His father supposedly wasn’t happy with some of the actions taken by the defendant’s bodyguards. The defendant carried a glock .1 at all times. He told the Agent that he only used it on the firing range and denied ever shooting anyone else. He also denied ordering to shoot anyone else. He said he ordered the ATU to have people arrested or detained but never ordered for them to torture. He also said he was never on the front lines. He told the Agent that he never saw the ATU shoot anyone directly. Never ordered anyone to cut or chop anyone else. When asked what the worst behavior he saw an ATU soldier do was he said a slap with an open hand.

He said he was present when Yeaton arrested a “press guy” and saw him get beaten and burned with an iron. He denied taking part in the “torture.”

The defendant went on his honeymoon to Trinidad and Tobago and when he returned to Liberia the relation between him and his father worsened. There was continued disagreement over bringing ATU together with SSS and EMSSU.

From 2000-03 Momojiba was commander of the ATU. Momojiba got orders from Charles Taylor. During that time frame the defendant still had ATU bodyguards. He believed that the ATU began to get involved in human rights abuses after 2000. Said he left ATU in 2000 and ceased his advisory role.  The defendant said he was being framed by his enemies. His father didn’t know he was leaving Liberia.

Agent said in May 2007 he went to Sweden and spoke with one witness in a police building in Stockholm. He showed the witness some photos and asked if he recognized any of the men in the photos. In the photo spread of 6 pictures he identified one picture as being of the defendant.

Then court broke for the day.