Special Report on the Rule 98 Motion for Acquittal on Basis of Insufficient Evidence
Trial Chamber II – Charles Taylor Trial
July, 2009
This report details the submissions of the parties and Trial Chamber judgment on the recent Rule 98 motion for acquittal brought by the accused in the Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor. Pursuant to Rule 98 of the SCSL Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Trial Chamber II heard oral submissions from the parties on a motion for acquittal brought by Counsel for the Accused at teh halfway point of the trial. The Defense is entitled to bring this motion at the close of the Prosecution’s case-in-chief. The premise underlying a Rule 98 motion is that the Prosecution has failed to present evidence sufficient to support a guilty verdict for one or more of the alleged crimes in the indictment. In the Taylor case, the Defense argued that the Prosecution failed to present evidence sufficient to support a conviction on all counts. Consistent with statements the Defense has made since the beginning of trial, the Accused did not contest the veracity of the crime-base evidence. Instead, the Defense argued almost exclusively that the Prosecution had failed to adduce adequate linkage evidence tying Mr. Taylor to the crimes committed in Sierra Leone. The Prosecution sought dismissal of the motion in its entirety, countering that it had led evidence capable of supporting a conviction on each count in the indictment. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court deliberated for one week and then dismissed the Defense motion in its entirety. In a unanimous decision, delivered orally from the bench, the Judges of Trial Chamber II held that the Prosecution had led sufficient evidence, under a JCE theory of liability, to support conviction on all counts of the indictment. Despite detailed submissions from the parties, the Court declined to address the strength of the Prosecution evidence under any other mode of liability.
Read full report in pdf format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 107
Trial Chamber II – Charles Taylor Trial
December 2008 - February 2009
After 205 days—or 41 full weeks—of court sessions, examination of the Prosecution’s 91st and final witness concluded on January 30, 2009. Prosecutor Stephen Rapp said his team had “achieved was [they] set out to do.”1 Proceedings ran smoothly and efficiently in these final weeks. The Defendant missed a single day of trial on the last day of the session, but he gave consent for the trial to proceed in his absence. The trial session extended several days past the original schedule in December so the Defense could finish cross-examining witness TF1-274, Dauda Fornie, before the winter recess (December 12, 2008 – January 12, 2009). Fornie, a radio operator in the RUF, provided the last strong linkage testimony heard in open session. Upon resuming hearings in January, the Court heard the remaining seven Prosecution witnesses. Hassan Bility, a Liberian journalist, testified that Taylor had him tortured for authoring newspaper articles about Taylor’s involvement with the RUF in Sierra Leone. Special Court for Sierra Leone employee Tarik Maliq testified about how documentary evidence is processed at the SCSL. One witness gave testimony entirely in closed session. The Prosecution closed the session with four crime-base witnesses. These witnesses provided testimony about the atrocities allegedly committed by the RUF and AFRC forces in Sierra Leone from 1996 to 2002.
Read full report in PDF format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 106
Trial Chamber II – Charles Taylor Trial
October 1 - October 31, 2008
The trial against Charles Taylor rushed ahead in the month of October: the Prosecution called 32 witnesses in 17 days of trial, and the parties litigated several noteworthy procedural issues. The witnesses (all crime-base or victim witnesses) provided harrowing testimony about mass atrocities they claim to have experienced or witnessed in Sierra Leone. Nearly half of the witnesses testified under Rule 92bis, which allowed them to submit prior written statements in lieu of undergoing direct examination. Pursuant to court order, however, the Defense was granted the right to cross-examine any 92bis witness it wished to question in open court. After Defense made clear that it intended to call all proposed 92bis witnesses to The Hague for cross-examination, the Prosecution reduced the total number of witnesses it intends to call from 144 (72 viva voce and 72 via Rule 92bis), to about 95, nearly 50 witnesses fewer than originally slated. By the end of the reporting period, the Prosecution had called a total of 80 witnesses. The focus this month on victim witnesses also gave rise to litigation over several procedural issues in court, including the rescission of protective measures, the general well-being and treatment of victim witnesses, and WVS redactions of confidential information executed without a court order. There was also an unsuccessful Defense motion to disqualify the Bench from presiding over the testimony of a particular witness.
Read full report in PDF format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 105
Trial Chamber II – Charles Taylor Trial
August 18 - August 29, 2008
Following the Court’s scheduled summer recess from July 21 to August 18, the trial of Charles Taylor got off to a slow start. The accused refused to appear in Court for the first two days of trial, in protest of heightened security measures imposed on Mr. Taylor at the detention facility by the Dutch prison authorities. On Wednesday, the accused appeared in Court, yet the scheduled cross-examination of witness TF1-375 could not begin because Mr. Munyard, the cross-examining Defense attorney, was out ill. Instead, the Prosecution began its examination-in-chief of witness TF1-367, with the understanding that the Court would interrupt his testimony and Mr. Munyard would resume cross-examination of TF1-375 upon recovery from his illness. Mr. Munyard returned after two days of testimony by witness TF1-367. Witness TF1-375 concluded his testimony during the second week of the reporting period. Cross-examination of Witness TF1-367 continued into the next reporting period. The Prosecution has called 35 out of a planned 72 viva voce witnesses.
Read full report in PDF format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 104
Trial Chamber I – RUF Trial
June 2 - June 24, 2008
This report offers a thematic overview and analysis of the evidentiary, legal, procedural, and court management issues that arose during the final session of the Revolutionary United Front ("RUF") trial,1 during which the Defense for third accused Augustine Gbao presented its case-in-chief. Taken together with similar reports provided by the War Crimes Studies Center during the past four years,2 it hopes to constitute a helpful record to those who would like to compare each side’s recently-completed final briefs and arguments, as well as the Court’s forthcoming judgment, to the evidence presented. Researchers interested in issues ranging from the evidentiary to the procedural to the administrative will also find it useful. Although the Gbao Defense case was not lengthy, the evidence provided therein has important implications for the RUF trial as a whole (and indeed, the historical record of the war that the Court is creating).
Read full RUF report in PDF format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 103
Trial Chamber I – RUF Trial
September - December, 2007
The following report is intended to provide the reader with an overview of the RUF’s recently completed tenth trial session (the ‘Tenth RUF Trial Session’ or the ‘Session’). The case against the alleged senior members of the Revolutionary United Front is arguably the most complex case the Special Court will try, but international focus on the trial has largely been waning. The War Crimes Studies Center hopes that this report will reinvigorate research and reporting interest in the RUF trial, as well as assist those currently analyzing the work of the Special Court by providing them with an update on proceedings that, for reasons explained below, are almost entirely inaccessible to an international audience.
Read full RUF report in PDF format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 102
Trial Chamber I – RUF Trial
June26 - June 29, 2007
Early this week, the Prosecution concluded its cross examination of the first accused, Issa Sesay. After Mr. Sesay stepped down, the Defense called its next two witnesses, both civilian women from Kailahun district testifying under protective measures. They were designated DIS-302 and DIS-301. Both women concluded their testimony before court adjourned on the 28th of June. This week’s proceedings brought the summer trial session to a close. As announced earlier this month, the Trial Chamber adjourned a full month earlier than originally anticipated. At close of proceedings, the Presiding Judge announced that trial will resume the 11th of September, 2007.
Read full report on Issa Sesay in PDF format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 101
Trial Chamber I – RUF Trial
June19 - June 22, 2007
This week, Trial Chamber One concluded its voir dire inquiry into the post-arrest custodial interrogation of first accused, Issa Sesay. Defense called three witnesses and the Chamber heard brief closing submissions from each party. On Friday morning, the Bench ruled against the Prosecution—excluding Mr. Sesay’s statements as involuntary on the grounds that OTP investigators took them in breach of the fundamental rights of the accused. Immediately following the Trial Chamber’s oral decision, the main trial resumed, Mr. Sesay returned to the stand, and the Prosecution began its cross-examination.
Read full report on Issa Sesay in PDF format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 100
Trial Chamber I – RUF Trial
June12 - June15, 2007
The Investigations Section of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) came into serious disrepute this week during a special voir dire hearing to determine the admissibility of post-arrest statements made in 2003 by first accused, Issa Sesay. The four investigators called by the Prosecution to testify in this “trial within a trial” denied any professional misconduct or procedural rights violations during Mr. Sesay’s arrest, detention, and interrogation. However, they went on to give evidence in direct and cross examination which, to varying degrees for each witness, largely corroborated the Defense allegations that Mr. Sesay’s statements were taken in breach of Article 17 of the Statute of the Court and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The testimony further confirmed numerous irregular, unexplained investigative practices of the OTP unit.
Read full report on Issa Sesay in PDF format
Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 99
Trial Chamber I – RUF Trial
June 8 , 2007
Trial Chamber I spent this week hearing detailed oral arguments on the admissibility of prior statements made by the first accused, Issa Sesay. The statements in controversy were taken by OTP Investigators during ten days of custodial interviews in March and April of 2003, immediately following Mr. Sesay’s initial detention. At issue was the voluntariness of Mr. Sesay’s statements and his alleged waivers of the right remain silent and the right to counsel. Prosecution sought to admit the transcripts, arguing that Investigators legitimately obtained the waivers and questioned Sesay in accordance with the procedural rights of the accused. Defense counsel argued that trickery, threats, and other improperly coercive methods were used to obtain the waivers and further elicit involuntary statements from the accused in breach of Rules 42, 63, and 92.
Read full report on Issa Sesay in PDF format
