The Trial of Charles “Chuckie” Taylor, Jr.

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.]