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

The Six Million Dollar Man

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

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

All Day - Today.

The Last Day

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.

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

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.