Brenda Hollis began the cross-examination of Charles Taylor today, after Taylor concluded 13 weeks of testifying in his own defense. It was heated and confrontational.
“Mr. Taylor, it’s true, isn’t it, that of all the people who have come before these judges you are the one who has the most reason to lie?” Hollis asked.
If the first day is any indication, it seems the prosecution will aim to point out some of Taylor’s more blatant lies over the next few weeks. I think this is smart. Hollis started by noting that Taylor testified he had told George W. Bush by letter at one point that he would step down as president, when in fact this was not in the letter.
Before the cross-examination began, Taylor wrapped up his direct examination. He said his indictment was part of a “US ’regime change’ plan to gain control of West African oil reserves and questioned the fairness of his trial, telling judges, ‘I am convicted already,’ according to the AP.
More on today’s testimony is on the Trial of Charles Taylor blog.
The prosecution has stumbled out of the gates. In three days the prosecution has yet to complete one full day of cross examination. What a shame on cross examination Brenda Hollis attemped to bring in new evidence. This was rejected by the judges. Concerning the George Bush letter what Mr. Taylor said in the letter is that he would “consider recusing hisself from the political process”. Is there any significant difference in that as opposed to ” stepping down” as he did say in his testimony. I think the prosectution is already grabbing for straws .
Ms. Grossman,
I’d love to get your take on the trial this week. If after years of preparation the prosecution for the third day in a row can’t get their strategy right then we all have reason to be perplexed.
As to the Taylor’s reference of stating to George Bush his intent to resign, simple English 101 dictates that “recusing oneself from the political process” means resign. Besides this is not in the indictment period and by the prosecutor opening with this, It shows why many believe this trial to be political.
If for argument sake you want to attack the credibility of the witness, there are more pertinent issues in the indictment period that Taylor could be grilled on. Please let me know your thoughts on the prosecution’s strategy because it looks like they could use your help at the moment.
Sorry Tim. Recuse does not mean resign.
When a judge recuses herself from a court case, does she resign from the bench?
Recuse: To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.
In this case, I do not know what the US thought that Taylor meant, perhaps that he was willing to recuse himself from the political peace negotiations with the LURD.
My guess is that the prosecution wants to demonstrate how Taylor plays fast and loose with the truth. I suspect they will seek to demonstrate a number of occasions when Taylor has lied to the court.
Judges don’t like to be lied to.