A judge on Friday ordered a retrial over allegations that a Virginia-based military contractor contributed to the mistreatment and torture of detainees at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison two decades ago.
The civil trial earlier this year ended with a hung jury and a mistrial, as the eight-person panel split over whether contracting company CACI was responsible for the mistreatment of the three Abu Ghraib survivors. They filed the lawsuit. Two jurors told The Associated Press after the mistrial that the majority of the jury wanted to find CACI liable. A unanimous jury verdict is required in federal civil cases.
CACI provided civilian interrogators to the prison in 2003 and 2004 to fill the lack of military interrogators. The lawsuit alleged that those interrogators conspired with soldiers to mistreat detainees in order to “soften them up” for interrogation.
At a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she had “gone around and around” about whether a new trial was appropriate, but ultimately decided the plaintiffs were within their rights to retry the case.
After declaring a mistrial last month, Brinkema asked from the stand whether a new trial would be a good idea.
First, it took enormous effort and 16 years of legal wrangling to bring the case to trial. It was the first time a U.S. jury heard lawsuits brought by Abu Ghraib survivors in the 20 years since photos of detainee mistreatment — accompanied by smiling U.S. soldiers — shocked the world during the U.S. occupation of Iraq. .
The trial lasted only a week, but the jury deliberated for eight days.
In court papers opposing a new trial, CACI argues that “the plaintiffs had their day in court, a day in court that shed light on the Abu Ghraib scandal as brilliantly as the state secret privilege allows.” . The evidence presented at trial demonstrates beyond a doubt that a jury…could not reasonably return a verdict other than in favor of CACI.”
CACI claimed its defense was hampered because the government argued that much of the evidence was confidential and could not be presented in a public trial. The judge noted Friday that the government’s use of state secrets also caused difficulties for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, had argued that they were entitled to a new trial and that the judge could only prevent it if CACI showed that no reasonable jury would find it liable.
During the trial, the jury asked questions that showed it was divided and unsure how to apply a legal principle called the “borrowed servants” doctrine. CACI, as one of its defenses, argued that it should not be responsible for the misconduct committed by its employees if they were under the control and direction of the Army.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys tried to block CACI from making that argument at trial, but Brinkema allowed the jury to consider it.
Both sides discussed the scope of the case law. Crucially, if CACI could prove that its interrogators were under the command and control of the Army at the time the misconduct occurred, the jury should find in CACI’s favor.
Although it took 16 years to try the first case, it should not take that long to hold a new trial. Brinkema said he wants the retrial to be held this year, and both sides indicated they were initially willing to set a trial date for October.
Many of the trial witnesses testified through recorded statements, including several of the soldiers guarding the prison who were convicted in courts-martial of mistreating detainees. Therefore, it is likely that his testimony could be played before a new jury.
