Judge orders retrial of civil case against contractor accused of abuse at Abu Ghraib
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A judge ordered a new trial Friday on allegations that a Virginia-based military contractor contributed to the abuse and torture of prisoners at Iraq’s infamous Abu Ghraib prison two decades ago.
A civil trial earlier this year ended with a hung jury and a mistrial, with the eight-member panel split over whether contractor CACI bore responsibility for the abuse of the three Abu Ghraib survivors who filed suit. Two jurors told The Associated Press after the mistrial that a majority of the jury wanted to hold CACI liable. In federal civil cases, a unanimous jury verdict is required.
CACI provided civilian interrogators to the prison in 2003 and 2004 to supplement the lack of military interrogators. The lawsuit alleged that these interrogators conspired with soldiers there to abuse detainees as a way to “soften them up” for interrogation.
At a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she had “gone back and forth” on whether a new trial was merited, but ultimately decided the plaintiffs had the right to retry the case.
After declaring a mistrial last month, Brinkema had wondered from the court whether a new trial would be a good idea.
It took an enormous effort and sixteen years of legal wrangling to even bring the case to court. The process marked the first time an American jury heard claims Survivors of Abu Ghraib in the two decades since photos of detainee abuse – accompanied by smiling American soldiers inflicting the abuse – shocked the world during the US occupation of Iraq.
The trial itself lasted only a week, but the jury deliberated for eight days.
In court papers opposing a new trial, CACI argued that “plaintiffs got their day in court, a day in court that shone a light on the Abu Ghraib scandal as brightly as the state secrets privilege allows. The evidence presented at trial demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury … could reasonably return no verdict other than one in favor of CACI.”
CACI said it was hampered in its defense because the government claimed that large amounts of evidence were classified and could not be presented in a public trial. The judge said Friday that the government’s use of the state secrets privilege also caused problems for the plaintiffs.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, who were represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, had argued that they were entitled to a new trial as a matter of law, and that the judge could only rule this out if CACI could show that no reasonable jury would find it liable.
During the trial, the jury asked questions that showed they were divided and unsure how to apply a legal principle called the “borrowed servant” doctrine. CACI argued as one of its defenses that it should not be liable for any wrongdoing of its employees if they were under the control and direction of the military.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys tried to stop CACI from making that argument at trial, but Brinkema let the jury consider it.
Both sides argued over the scope of the doctrine. But essentially, the jury was instructed to find in CACI’s favor if CACI could prove that its interrogators were under the command and control of the military at the time misconduct occurred.
While it took sixteen years to bring the first case to trial, it shouldn’t take nearly as long to bring a new trial. Brinkema said she wants the new trial to take place this year, and both sides indicated they would initially be considered for a trial date in October.
Many of the witnesses at the trial testified through recorded statements, including a number of soldiers who guarded the prison and were convicted by court-martial for abusing prisoners. As a result, it is likely that their testimony could simply be played before a new jury.