The Trial of Charles “Chuckie” Taylor, Jr.

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.)