The Trial of Nicolas Carranza

Who I Am (i am not a writer or a counselor at law.)

2006-01-01T17:38:00.000-08:00

The Six Million Dollar Man

2005-11-19T17:29:00.000-08:00

Friday, November 18th: I drive downtown midmorning to poke my head into the courthouse just to see if there’s any activity going on. Before I can get there I spy plaintiff’s team members Patty Blum, Matt Eisenbrandt, and Almudena Bernabeu walking up Main Street so I pull the car over and shout Patty’s name. Almudena says, “Oh hey, still no verdict, I’m completely frazzled, we’re getting coffee.” So I go home for a little while and later I go to work. It sounds like there is no chance for a verdict today and believe it or not the deliberations will creep into Thanksgiving week. Such was not the case…

Late Friday afternoon the jury awards 6 million dollars to 4 plaintiffs. $500,000.00 in compensatory (actual) damages and $1,000,000.00 in punitive (intended to punish) damages were awarded to each of the following plaintiffs: Erlinda Franco, Francisco Calderon, Cecilia Santos, and Daniel Alvarado. Judge McCalla declared Ana Patricia Chavez’s case a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Chavez may re-file the case in the future. Fargarson told the Commercial Appeal (the local newspaper) that Colonel Carranza had spent nearly everything he had defending himself in this case. Fargarson vowed to appeal the judgment against his client. We’ll see…

In Hickory Hill

2005-11-16T18:03:00.000-08:00

Jury continues deliberation and has several requests including extra copies of the jury instructions and an easel. Additionally, the jury has several questions regarding the jury instructions that need clarification in order to move forward. Fargarson objects to any further written clarification on the jury instructions. McCalla overrules. Frankly, the jury instructions when first presented by Judge McCalla seem far too complicated for any average person to understand. McCalla rewrites to clarify a passage in his chambers and then a typed draft is given to both sides to agree on. Fargarson objects again, McCalla overrules. McCalla calls the panel back to the courtroom to hear the new “clarified” passage of the instructions.

A couple of days ago I met a journalist from San Salvador. This morning he asks me to write down the neighborhood Carranza lives in. I write on his pad, “Hickory Hill in Southeast Memphis.” It is clear it’s going to be sometime before the jury comes to a decision so I ask him if he wants to see “Hickory Hill,” he says yes, so we drive out to take a look. I even stop at a gas station to get Carranza’s address out of the phone book. And I drive right to his house after some fumbling around ( I don’t spend much time in Southeast Memphis). The journalist gets out of the car and tries to talk to a couple of neighbors. Not much luck really. “He really never says anything,” says one neighbor.

I’m not real surprised.

Jury deliberates

2005-11-15T18:02:00.000-08:00

All Day - Today.

The Last Day

2005-11-14T18:00:00.000-08:00

Today was the final day of trial as Attorneys from both sides presented their closing arguments to the jurors.

Plaintiffs open with David Esquivel reminding the jury their position with following talking points: The United States does not support torture or torturers. Carranza was a CIA informer but this fact does not give a seal of approval regarding his actions from the United States. In Carranza’s military career this is the only thing he is ashamed of. Upon taking office in El Salvador Ambassador Robert White wrote in a cable to the Pentagon that – Colonel Carranza has got to go and the sooner the better. The defendant’s attorney wanted you to believe that Carranza made efforts to improve conditions for prisoners while being incarcerated by providing them with new mattresses and re-painting the cells but truth be told it was his duty was to investigate the killing and torture that took place during his command. Carranza refuses to accept responsibility and continues to try to blame others including: the Communists, the U.S. Military, the Leftists, the Cubans, Ambassador White, the Plaintiffs, his Subordinates, his Superiors, and the overall lack of evidence. Esquivel proclaims, “Colonel Carranza failed by design,” by failing to supervise and punish those responsible for the abuses. When he was the sub-minister of defense he blames the minister. When he was the Director of the Treasury Police he blames the number two man in charge. He will say anything to avoid responsibility. The plaintiffs were young people who had promising futures ahead of them and had their dreams, hopes, and ambitions taken away. The jury should consider what Carranza had taken from the plaintiffs when considering what damages to award to them.

After a break the Defendants open with Bruce Brooke who explains Carranza’s position with the following talking points: There were many observations by many people who not there at the time. 24-26 years after the fact memories have faded. None of these people with the exception of Daniel Alvarado ever knew or met Carranza. Carranza could not deny these things happening to these people because he simply never knew about it. All of the plaintiffs were contacted by the Center for Justice and Accountability and told they could have a lawsuit. The CJA told the plaintiffs all they had to do was re-live it and they would take care of the rest. The CJA would regularly submit text that was taken out of context 24 -26 after the fact. In 1979 Carranza was a telecommunications officer who was appointed and knew nothing about these allegations. The Plaintiff’s attorneys are obviously skilled in communications, they are able to advise, co-ordinate, and purpose. Ambassador Robert White was not even in the country at the time when these abuses were taking place. There was a new junta in control of the country and there was disunity within the troops. Ambassador White and Professor Terry Karl have testified three separate times in CJA’s cases. Carranza placed many officers of the Treasury Police in jail for their abuses. They sat in jail cells next to many of the people that had been illegally detained. Professor Karl never talked to Carranza and Carranza was not in the country when many of photos used as exhibits by the Plaintiffs were presented. Carranza’s name is no where to be found in the United Nations Truth Commission report. The country of El Salvador was in the throws of violent unrest since around 1930.

After the break the Defendants close their closing arguments with Fargarson’s remarks. The talking points were as follows: Carranza does not deny what happened to these people, however he was under no authority to do all the plaintiffs wanted him to do to stop the abuses against them. All of the Defendant’s witnesses came on their own accord to tell their stories about the character of Carranza. Carranza was in the Treasury Police for only one year and he worked to improve the department’s reputation. United States Attaché Brian Bosch spoke highly of Carranza’s ability to reform the military and praised his leadership qualities.

Esquivel’s rebuttal talking points: Carranza was more than Minister Garcia’s “PR man,” he was a soldier’s soldier. It is incorrect to blame the plaintiff’s lawyers because the law affords these people the right to have justice. The attacks on the plaintiff’s witness are unfounded, White was a public servant to this country for many, many years, Karl worked diligently to discover the truth, and Professor Garcia of Argentina spent time in jail in his own country for refusing to submit to a dictator. The documents and cables that were presented to the jury as evidence were not selectively read to them. The Defendant’s comparisons of the United State’s military to El Salvador’s military are invalid. El Salvador has been under a military dictatorship for the last 50 years. Finally, it has too long of a time to pretend like it never happened.

Judge McCalla spends some time reading the jury instructions to the jury. This includes identifying the experts in the case, explaining the depositions used in examination as part of the pre-trial discovery process. McCalla also reviews all of the facts that were agreed upon before the trial and there are many:
From 10-77 to 1-82 Carranza was the sub-secretary of defense.
He did not investigate any abuses.
He did not punish any soldiers.
He did not prosecute any soldiers.
From 1977-1984 torture was prohibited.
From 1983-1984 he was the director of the Treasury Police.
He had the legal authority to exercise control in the Treasury Police.
He had the legal authority to discipline in the Treasury Police.
He did not prosecute anyone in the Treasury Police.
The acts committed against Chavez happened on 7-26-80.
Chavez currently resides in Van Nuys, CA.
The acts committed against Calderon happened on 9-11-80.
Calderon currently resides in San Francisco, CA.
The acts committed against Franco happened on 9-27-80.
Franco currently resides in El Salvador.
The acts committed against Alvarado happened in the month of 8-83.
Alvarado currently resides in Sweeden.
The acts committed against Santos happened in the month of 9-80.
Santos currently resides in New York City.
Nicolas Carranza was a resident of Memphis, TN since 1985.
Nicolas Carranza has been a U. S. citizen since 1991.
Nicolas Carranza had not concealed his identity.
Chavez does not know the name of those who committed violent acts against her.
Calderon does not know the name of those who committed violent acts against him
Franco does not know the name of those who committed violent acts against her.
Alvarado does not know the name of those who committed violent acts against him.
Chavez had a common law marriage to her husband.

There are a number of separate claims against Carranza including:
Santos for torture.
Calderon for torture.
Calderon for the killing of his father.
Chavez for the killing of her mother.
Chavez for the killing of her father.
Franco for the killing of her husband.
Alvarado for torture.

Etc. All verdicts must be unanimous, every juror must decide the case for themselves, do not surrender an honest conviction, do not be afraid to change your mind, your notes are for your own use only, and the judge can only answers questions about the law not about the facts of the case.

One Half of The Story of Nicolas Carranza as told by himself.

2005-11-10T19:35:00.000-08:00

Carranza takes the stand this morning in defense of himself. He is examined by Bob Fargarson. Finally, after all this time I get to hear Carranza speak. Carranza spent a great portion of his El Salvador life in the military and graduated at the top of his class. One of his first visits to the United States was going to an artillery training camp in Ft. Sill, OK in 1958. This was an opportunity that was given to officers from Latin America. He spent time teaching in various capacities at the School of Arms and Services in El Salvador. He fought in the 100 Hours War on the Honduran border in late 60’s/early 70’s. He traveled to Mexico to continue training as a foreign officer. In the late 70’s he was appointed to a General Manager post at ANTEL, the government run telecommunications company that regulates phone, television, and radio throughout the country. He kept referring to it as something in the vain of Bell South. I think it might have been more like all the Bells and the FCC combined. This is sort of an interesting move for a career military man. The plaintiff’s contend this is so the current administration could have it hands on the main communications control center for the country. The defendant’s maintain that a successful leader is needed in a variety of agencies throughout the country to help produce results elsewhere. Further, Carranza states that he’ll accept posts or take missions where ever they (his superiors) send him.

Carranza explains the Chain of Command. A graphic that everyone in the courtroom has become painfully familiar with since most of the people on the stand have had something to say about it. Finally, Carranza who actually lived it explains it to everyone. The power flows from the head to the end. The president is the commander, the minister of defense is next in line, and finally, the vice minister of defense (Carranza’s rank) follows. This is followed by a multitude of branches including the Army, Navy, Air Force, National Guard, National Police, and the Treasury Police. According to most reports, the later three were all particularly menacing to the civilian population. Next up is the infamous Article 26 of the Military Code Book describing (among other things) how inferior officers report to superior officers and what functions under-secretaries serve. Followed by Article 186 of the Military Code describing how inferiors are supposed to follow orders by superiors.

I left at lunch to go to work and tomorrow (Friday 11-11) is federal holiday. The trial resumes on Monday and should be wrapped up by the end of the week. More later…

Wanted: Serious Firepower for the Defendant

2005-11-09T18:23:00.000-08:00

Defendant’s attorney Bruce Brooke examines witness for the defendant Jose Aruco. I got the distinct impression Brooke had never spoken with this man before as it is fairly commonplace (?) to prep your witness before the trial. Half way through the morning Judge McCalla stopped the questioning to tell Aruco that this line of questioning requires only very narrow factual answers and that the attorney will let you know if you a more expansive answer is required. No matter by that time I suppose. Between the translation and multiple sidebars (where the two sides quarreled about the credentials of Aruco) it was all lost in a haze. Brooke would ask a short question and Aruco would talk until the jury’s eyes were rolling out of their heads. I secretly hoped Carranza could do a better job then this. This was not the adequate representation they were talking about in the U.S. Code Books. This was a bit of train wreck. I leaned over to Professor Karl, now sitting in the gallery on the same aisle as me and pointed to the remark I had written on my page, “witness apparently called by defendant to confuse the jury???” It was actually a bit of joke that didn’t go over very well (wouldn’t be the first time). She did tell me that the University that the witness taught at had recently been shut down for academic fraud. That’s grim. David Esquivel wasted no time cutting to the heart of the matter. Aruco is an agronomy and religion professor who may have a law degree but is not qualified to speak on El Salvadorian politics, history, or the military. Is this sort of like being an untrained auto mechanic with no wrenches and a field full of broken cars? I smelled big trouble. Brooke became agitated at one point after the morning break verbally brawling with Esquivel when the white noise maker was turned off and quite near the gallery’s sitting area. I wasted no time cocking my ear in that direction. The translator was standing there with the witness as well. Some sparks flew with lots of scattered conversation in both languages. I’m not sure Aruco was much help to Carranza’s case. I understand two other witnesses (the two I missed who testified in the afternoon session – when yours truly is out making a living) were not much help to Carranza either. This according to one of plaintiff’s team members I spoke to in the break room while I ate my 75 cent granola bar.

Fargarson cross examines Karl

2005-11-08T16:33:00.000-08:00

This morning we watched the cross examination of Professor Karl by Fargarson. The questioning included a very long series of questions asking very specific things about very old and non-descriptive conferences on Central American issues. Most of which were lost on myself and certainly the jury. Fargarson quizzed Karl about her experience in El Salvador over the last 2 decades and change. Fargarson pointed out that the Truth Commission report put together by the U. N. after the (non) war makes no mention of Carranza by name and that the state was overwhelming to blame for all of the murders committed by it’s own low level people. Fargarson asks Karl about her expert testimony in two other lawsuits filed on behalf of the Center for Justice and Accountability (once in Florida (Romagoza et al v. Garcia and Vides Casanova) and once in California (Doe V. Saravia)). Fargarson produces as exhibits a couple of library books with photographs. The first book has photos of a young man in plain clothes carrying a machine gun. The second book has a photo of a bridge that may or may not have been the bridge blown up during a border war with Honduras. I’m more confused by this point. When asked if she could give examples of anything positive Carranza did while on the job she mentions he once published a signed statement rallying against the death squads and he once handed out recordings of the Treasury Police Band at press conference hoping to improve the department’s image. I wonder what those records are fetching on eBay these days.

A Green Light for Terror

2005-11-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

A Green Light for Terror

Today the Plaintiff’s call Professor Terry Karl of Stanford University, an expert witness on Central American history and politics. She is examined by David Esquivel. She explains the rather dire situation around the country in the early 1980’s. The Archbishop’s office was only place that paid attention to all of bodies that were collected on the streets, in the country, by the sea, in the supermarkets, wherever, and whenever. The bodies were collected each and every morning. They were photographed, a proper description made, and cataloged in one massive book after another. People would come to the office to find missing people sometimes bringing photos to show to anyone who would listen. This was the only place in the country to go for help identifying the missing. Frequently people would be abducted, killed, and dumped elsewhere making it hard to figure out who they were or where they came from. The death squads would strip the bodies of anything of value and never leave any type of identification papers or cards if the victims had them at all. Bodies were often left in places of high foot traffic so they could be seen by as many people of possible. This was the method of terrorizing a population. Kill a peasant and stuff his mouth full of dirt suggesting to all those people seeing him after the fact that speaking in favor of land reform was a very bad idea. Kill the priest or the politician of the small town and put his body in the town square sending a message of death to all those who pass by. Professor Karl described the level of violence in 80-83 as “a widespread state of terror,” a complete assault on the civilian population by the state. Additionally, she claimed that Colonel Carranza had effective control, orders were given, and orders were obeyed. Carranza also had knowledge that human rights abuses were taking place and it is inconceivable that he had no knowledge. Carranza failed in his duty; no steps were taken to reduce the level of abuse, it was effectively command failure on his part. Finally, Karl claimed that Colonel Carranza’s resulting failure was “a green light for terror.”

A Bad Year for Students

2005-11-04T19:21:00.000-08:00

Today was Friday in Judge McCalla’s courtroom. In the middle of the night last night I checked Judge McCalla’s calendar on-line (you can too – http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/Calendars/McCalla/default.htm ) to see if the starting time had changed and it had from 9:00 am to 9:30 am. Judge McCalla usually gives himself some time in the morning and some afternoons to squeeze in a “Sentencing” or two. No matter, I showed up at 9:30am and Matt Eisenbrandt was already examining Ana Patricia Chavez. She recalls having her mother killed while laying next her only to be alerted by one of the neighbors moments later “that you might want to come outside and have a look at this body that was found on the side of road” (her husband) and then her father too. Completely nightmarish. Fargarson cross-examined, what could he say - mostly the usual questions about a law firm approaching you with this case. Have you ever met/seen Col. Carranza? Did you know the post he held? Did you/do you know anything about the political situation in El Salvador at that time? Did you know you could sue anyone regarding this situation until someone told you could?

BLAH.

Plaintiff’s call their next witness… Daniel Alvarado to be examined by David Esquivel. Daniel was in college (I believe the Central American University.) in 1980 and joined the student council. This was a time in El Salvador when Army soldiers and police spent time poking around campus looking for guerrillas. Or as Daniel explains the year 1980, “It was a bad time for teachers and it was a bad time for students.” One of the first incidents happened when soldiers fired on a moving car paralyzing a student. Things didn’t get much better after that. It was not unusual to be at least harassed, or beaten, or tortured, or worse yet killed. The Army and the Police were determined to flush the subversive guerrillas out of the learning environment. Many students actively protested against dwindling education budgets and growing military expenditures. Daniel says, “The students wanted to be left in peace so they could study but the military wasn’t having any of it.” Student council members became particular targets by the violent government authorities. The student associations would do things like march throughout town and prepare fliers requesting the return of certain “missing” students or demanding freedom and student rights reform. It was a pretty turbulent time and students frequently found themselves staring down the wrong end of a rifle barrel. Daniel Alvarado became a target and was yanked out of the stands at a soccer game one afternoon, blind-folded and put in the back of a car and driven and driven and driven. Hours later he was brutally tortured until he lost consciousness only to be brutally tortured until he lost consciousness again and again. Sometime later he was charged with the murder a United States Military Advisor by the name of Albert Schaufelberger. You and I both know being charged with killing an American on foreign soil usually spells doomsday. Schaufelberger, age 33, was U.S. Navy Lieut. Commander who was in San Salvador to help administer U.S. security assistance. Daniel Alvarado is unique among the plaintiff’s in this case because he actually had come into contact with Col. Carranza. Carranza drug him in front of the reporters at a press conference to announce that the killer of Lieut. Commander Schaufelberger had been captured. You can bet your bottom dollar the members of the
U. S. Senate needed some answers regarding the death of someone like the Lieut. Commander. Remember the United States was pumping crazy cash in military aid to fight the communist insurgency (?) in El Salvador at the time. The American press would need some answers too. Schaufelberger was the first American military advisor to be killed in that country. If El Salvador was being saved and repaired and all was well -why would someone like Schaufelberger be killed? The Salvadorian military high command would need someone fast to cool all the hot questions. In walks Daniel Alvarado. You can probably guess the rest.

The Tale of Two Interpreters

2005-11-03T20:28:00.000-08:00

Tale of Two Interpreters

Today was day four in Judge McCalla’s courtroom. Plaintiff’s call Colonel/ Professor Jose Garcia of Buenos Aires, Argentina who is a paid expert witness to thrash out the particulars about the El Salvadorian military structure/chain of command. Plaintiff’s Attorney Matt Eisenbrandt’s examination of Professor Garcia seems to gloss over the eyes of the nine remaining members of the jury. It’s difficult terrain to navigate, that much is certain. The country’s Code of Military Justice, the chart of the Chain of Command, multiple articles from dusty old armed-forces-regulations-books. Professor Garcia read every last word in Spanish and the translators translated in English. A very time consuming process, that much is certain (again). The plaintiff’s presentation of the materials gets a straight “A” especially with all the high tech gadgets at the courts disposal. More flat screen television monitors than a hip hop impresario’s poker room. Poor Defendant’s Attorney Bruce Brooke brings up his silly maps of Central and South America taken from some poor kid’s geography book and searches for their place under the high tech overhead projector all to tell us that yes! indeed! Argentina is located at the “bottom” of South America. Judge McCalla remarks, “it depends on what part of the universe you are in." Good point. Looks like the top of South America from Antarctica!

Anyway, whatever. The tale of two interpreters simply juxtapositions the mannerisms of the two sharp dressed men hired by the plaintiffs to turn this trial – mostly spoken in Spanish into English. And they both do a hellva job; I’m just so amazed at how completely differently their styles are. It is really quite remarkable.

I’m ashamed to say I don’t know their names, but I do want to meet them before this trial is over. The Judge swore them in the first day of trial and I failed to jot down there names. But believe me, they are a big part of this trial. Why two??? They have to rotate and for good reason. There is a lot of talking. The first interpreter is a younger man, medium build with dark hair and a moustache. From what I can tell he uses a digital recording device held in his palm to record the witness’s answers and then instantly repeats them in English into his microphone as he is listens to the answers through his tiny ear piece. He hits every stop (actually both interpreters do). I mean the pauses, the mis-speaks, the “ahhs”, every little nuance imaginable. You are probably wondering IF I don’t speak Spanish very well how in the hell would I know. Well, I know. I’m listening to the vocal patterns. I’m trained in communications and I’m detail oriented. (Or that’s what I told my employer.) No, seriously, these guys nail it. The other interpreter is an older gentlemen with grey hair and a perfect beard. He is completely different in style. He is emotional in front of the microphone. His English accent sounds of European dissent. He holds the microphone in his hand, and uses it like a performer would. He takes notes on a white note pad. Writing quickly and scratching it out as soon as he is finished translating it. His vocal delivery is forceful not subtle. He invokes. The other interpreter conveys. I wonder about the sub-conscience effect it has on the listening jury. Like having one interpreter over the other at certain passages could give you the upper hand. One can never tell.

I fell into a state of depression.

2005-11-02T20:24:00.000-08:00

“I fell into a state of depression, never to overcome it. I live with it right here today. Our lives were completely ruined. We became totally unprotected with no one’s help. Absolutely no one.” - Erlinda Franco

Erlinda Franco’s husband was abducted, tortured, and murdered because we he was a leader in the Revolutionary Democratic Front. He left his wife and four children. It happened on a day in November 1980 when Erlinda, her husband Manuel and their children were supposed to go to the eye doctor but cancelled because her husband had to give a speech at the San Jose School. Then later in the day Erlinda’s neighbor alerted her because she had heard a report on the radio that the bodies of six men were found on the side of the road on the way out of town. The radio report was sketchy on details but word started to travel fast. Erlinda reluctantly went to the funeral home to possibly identify her husband. She found him: shoeless, with four gunshot wounds, his pockets pulled out from his pants and a bad burn mark all the way around his neck from a metal torture device.

Nicolas Carranza’s attorney, Mr. Fargarson’s struggles a little bit during his cross examination of Erlinda Franco. Maybe he’s at a loss for words. Erlinda accuses him of asking questions to confuse her. She says, “I’m not in an optimum state.” Fargarson wants to point out that she was approached by a law firm about bringing this case against Mr. Carranza. The attorney who brought it to her attention was Almudena Bernabeu of the Center for Justice and Accountability. This more or less is one of the things the CJA does. Help people who have been victimized in this world. Apparently, the United States (probably not much to our surprise) has been something of a safe haven for human rights abusers for quite sometime. It started for CJA something like this: In 1976, the father of a young man who had been tortured and killed in Paraguay while in police custody saw the police inspector involved in his son's torture and killing walking the streets of Manhattan. The father called the INS, and the INS arrested the police inspector for overstaying his visitor's visa. The father and sister brought a claim against the inspector, and in 1980, the U.S. court in New York upheld their claims, opening the way for other claims using the Alien Tort Statute (which allows those who have had their rights violated (anywhere in the world) to sue the people responsible in United States Federal Court - this law has been on the books since 1789). Anyway, that’s got to be a hellva’ feeling walking down the block and seeing the person responsible for your son’s death just walking down the block too.

Nicolas Carranza led a very different life.

2005-11-01T20:15:00.000-08:00

“Nicolas Carranza led a very different life.” – David Esquivel (lead attorney for the plaintiffs). I met David Esquivel in Nashville a few months ago when my fellow film producer and I went up to spend the day in his office reading Discovery Documents. There was binder after binder of old newspaper articles, declassified documents, and any other relevant printed material you could think of. I read and copied and read and copied till I felt like I was going to bleed to death if I didn’t close my eyes. Before that I spent some time with Esquivel’s deposition of Carranza, which represents several hundred pages of very detailed questions that encompass Carranza’s entire life. Esquivel is pretty sharp. He’s probably a pretty good guy to have on your side and not such a great guy to have against you. The funny thing about Carranza’s deposition is that somehow he manages to know everything and virtually nothing all in one. His answers to particularly obscure questions frequently have the most incredible detail to them. While his answers to questions on events in his life that in passing would seem to have a substantial impact on him go completely forgotten. It’s quite an unusual contrast. I can tell you Esquivel never misses a beat along the way. And certainly today in court during his opening statement Esquivel left no stone unturned. Esquivel, began by introducing each of his five plaintiffs at the trial. Cecilia Santos was arrested in San Salvador in 1980. She was repeatedly tortured and interrogated in the back of a moving car. She was held for a number of days at the headquarters of the National Police and imprisoned for three years before fleeing the country. She now lives in NYC. Erlinda Franco is the widow of Manuel Franco who was abducted from a school in 1980. He was a leader of the FDR or Democratic Revolutionary Front as well as a teacher. Manuel and a number of other leaders of the FDR were all found murdered on the side of the road. Their bodies showed signs of torture. Francisco Calderon was watching television with his family when a number of uniformed National Police broke his door down. His father was a teacher and member of ANDES (a group trying to secure better wages and working conditions for teachers). After the police officers entered the house they forced both men on the floor and shot Francisco's father to death right in front of him. Francisco lives in California. Ana Patricia Chavez is the daughter of Humberto and Guillermina Chavez both of whom were killed after being tortured in front of their daughter. Plainclothes gunmen came into their house looking for propaganda of ANDES (the teacher's union). Ana lives in California. Daniel Alvarado was a student who was wrongly accused of murdering a United States Military adviser, Albert Schaufelberger. He was taken to the Treasury Police headquarters and tortured using a method referred to as the "little airplane with a pilot". Daniel was hog tied, stood on top of, and had his neck pulled backwards until he passed out. The torturer would then allow Daniel to regain consciousness and he would repeat continuously. Daniel was forced to sign a confession for the murder of Schaufelberger and later was presented to the media by Col. Carranza.

Esquivel tells the jury that the plaintiffs are going to prove Carranza committed crimes against humanity, failed in his command to stop atrocities that were being committed, and finally that the plaintiffs were seeking damages but more than that seeking justice.

Fargarson’s opening statement was quite different as you might imagine. Fargarson stated that Carranza “lead an exemplary life” that included military service in El Salvador and model citizenship here in the United States. Carranza was simply following orders in the chain of command while he served in the military. When Carranza was asked to lead the Treasury Police he was brought in to change the way they conducted their affairs. Additionally, Carranza was a paid informant of the United States government. The plaintiff’s want Carranza to take the blame for everything that happened in El Salvador at that time. Fargarson sounds a little rough. This to the jury this morning that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

The plaintiff’s call their first witness – former Ambassador to El Salvador Robert White. More on that later…

Day One - All Saint's Day

2005-10-31T20:12:00.000-08:00

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

2005-10-31T20:07:00.000-08:00

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.