Day One - All Saint's Day

The first day of trial - actually jury selection. The pool of jurors consists of about 35 men and women from West Tennessee. 14 jurors are random selected by the clerk from an old fashioned "bingo-calling"-like device. He reads the names and spells them as the selected jurors move from the gallery to the jury box. Judge McCalla begins asking individual jurors questions such as: What characteristics do they feel would make a good juror? Judge McCalla begins compiling a list based on the prospective juror's answers. A wireless microphone is passed from down the row in the jury box as each juror answers the question. McCalla asks each juror to give him an answer different than any that already appearing on the list making it harder for the last juror to answer the question then it was for the first. There is occasional confusion as the potential jurors try to answer "opinion" questions correctly. McCalla occasionally helps the jurors formulate answers to keep the process moving. The trial is scheduled to last for approximately three weeks; I remark to my fellow film producer that it feels like picking the jury might last about that long.

When the attorneys confer privately with McCalla and approach the bench, he turns on this white noise making device to drown out the conversation. It feels this way but in fact he might just be switching off the public address system and experiencing some buzz from an improperly grounded electronic device.

Eventually Judge McCalla gets down to the nuts and bolts and begins to explain to the approximately 35 people of the potential jury what the case is all about. #1 – It is a civil case not a criminal case. If the defendant were to lose he would potentially have a judgment (or a sum of money) against him OR perhaps (I've heard) lose his citizenship and be deported. I'm not sure if the later is really a possibility. #2 - The plaintiffs are a group of people who brought the case against Carranza. #3 - Carranza is the defendant and he must defend himself against those bringing the case. Okay, obviously maybe but McCalla explains it this way to the jury and the rest of the courtroom. It certainly is a point worth over-clarifying – even to myself.

McCalla tells the jury that one of the complicated matters they will have to attend to is that they will have to make decisions based on the application of laws that are largely unfamiliar to them. Additionally he asks the jury if they will be able to apply the law in the United States even though the events occurred in the country of El Salvador. He points out that with exception of one plaintiff NONE of the plaintiffs have ever even seen Carranza before. Carranza was NOT present at any of the tortures or killings that are going to be talked about with regard to the plaintiff's in this trial.

Nicolas Carranza is an older gentleman with thinning, graying hair. I would guess he is a few years over 70 years old. I will check the record to confirm his age. He looks much different then all of the photos I've seen of him back when he was in the El Salvadorian military. In those photos he was always in uniform. He always looked pretty serious in those photos. One book I read about El Salvador at that time referred to him as "the menacing Col. Carranza". Another book described him as "a competent, savvy military leader". Neither description is particularly apparent today. He looks good in his suit today. There is a lot of experience in his eyes. That much I can tell. I can see him occasionally taking notes on his legal pad. I believe his wife, daughter, and grandson are sitting in the aisle ahead of me in the gallery.

Robert Fargarson is his lead attorney. Fargarson was admitted to the TN Bar in 1958. It's readily apparent he's been doing this for sometime. Fargarson is tall, with a decent tan and plenty of graying hair. He speaks v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y and deliberately. He reminds me of something my attorney friend says "You can never retire from practicing law because your wealth of knowledge makes you better and better at what you do." He and his partner seem in sharp contrast to the plaintiff's team of attorneys (more on them another day). My fellow film producer talked with Fargarson weeks before the trial started. He wanted to impress upon her the fact that there was nothing particularly unusual about this case. He seemed perplexed why we would be interested in it, let alone interested in making a documentary film about it. Essentially he thinks it's a waste of time. Fargarson's request for a "gag order" (read: no publicity) was denied by Judge McCalla at the pre-trial hearing two weeks ago. There was at least one local television reporter for a very brief time in court today. I caught a sliver of a news story about it on the noon news on the local NBC affiliate station.

Bruce Brooke is Bob Fargarson's partner. He was admitted to the TN Bar in 1971. I don't know much about Brooke. He was not at the pre-trial hearing. I did not hear him speak today.

Now here's the bad part. I have a job and I had to leave at noon today to go to work. This is going to be a regular occurrence. I'm mentioning it now because I want to point out I WAS NOT at the trial for the entire day. So this is my record of what happened in the first half of the day. This scenario is a bit aggravating. But I'm not sure I can do much about it. My lottery money didn't come in and I haven't figured a way out of work yet. So every morning I will have to start the day with half the story missing from the day before. Yes, there exists a trial transcript of each and every day but like a lot of things, "there is nothing like being there".

Trial Preface

Col Carranza Trial preface
Sunday Oct. 30. the night before the Carranza trial starts. Let me tell you a little bit about the case.
Eight Salvadoran plaintiffs are in federal court participating in a lawsuit against a former military leader in El Salvador. The leader's name is Colonel Nicholas Carranza. The plaintiffs either were tortured or suffered the death of their parents at the hands of the Salvadoran military during the early 1980s. The lawsuit alleges that the defendant, who currently resides in Memphis, Tennessee, is responsible for the plaintiff's torture or the murder of their parents.
The judge in this jury trial is the honorable Jon Phipps McCalla presiding over the case in the Western District of Tennessee. Judge McCalla previously denied our request to shoot (film) the proceedings for our documentary film about this rather unusual event.
There are a number of issues that will be debated in this trial. The first of which is the notion of Universal Jurisdiction. (please remember I am not a lawyer) Universal Jurisdiction is the idea that the United States has some jurisdiction (or the ability to exercise authority over people and events in a territory) in the world we live in.
Additionally the trial will look at Command Responsibility. Or put another way in times of war how much are the leaders to blame for their own actions and the actions of their soldiers.
The Torture Victim Protection Act is an act that allows victims of torture (anywhere in the world) to make a claim ($) against those who brought harm against them IF they are residing in the country OR to my knowledge reside in a place that is within the long arm of U.S. law (that would be about anywhere).
Finally, the Alien Tort Claims Act helped U.S. ships of a hundred years ago take legal action against pirates from foreign countries who committed acts of aggression against them off the shores of our country. Not exactly within the United States proper and occasionally to my knowledge not exactly on our waters BUT on the high seas nevertheless.
Judge McCalla denied our request to "film" the trial in the Pre-trial hearing about 2 weeks ago. This was not a surprise as cameras are not a part of the process in the federal courts of our land. McCalla addressed us at the Pre-trial hearing where lawyers from both sides met to discuss the upcoming case. McCalla was quick to point out that "we" (the filmmakers) were welcome in "his" courtroom and that his decision had nothing to do with the wishes of either the plaintiff's attorneys or the defendant's attorneys.