To nearly everyone’s surprise, the jury in captured FARC leader Simón Trinidad’s trial here in Washington is deadlocked after a day of deliberations. They sent a message to the judge saying that they were divided, with "honest differences," and see little hope of coming to agreement on any of the charges. The judge refused to declare a mistrial, and ordered them to take as many days as they need to come to a verdict.
Here, shared by permission, is an interesting message I received yesterday from a colleague who has been following the trial much more closely than I have. I’ve only edited it to remove any information that affects this colleague’s anonymity.
Greetings. As you know from the AP article you sent, Simon’s trial ended yesterday; the jury is now working to reach a verdict. Who knows what their take will be.
The trial was indeed very much a political trial, Adam. The conspiracy law under which Simón was charged is very broad (as was probably intended), and so lends itself to trying somebody like Trinidad. The judge, at virtually every turn during the trial, favored the Prosecution with his decisions. This happened through Tuesday, the day that both the Prosecution and Defense discussed with the judge precisely what instructions the judge would give to the jury before their deliberations. The judge invariably favored the Prosecution. He so clearly was trying to protect the Government. (The judge, Thomas Hogan, was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1982, and one of the defense attorneys told me that he was one of the founders of Democrats for Reagan of the time.)
Simón was to have three witnesses testifying on his behalf. But the judge ruled that the testimony of the three was not relevant to the case. These rulings were stunning. Finally, Simón testified on his own behalf, which is unusual in a criminal case of this kind. (I thought he did a superb job; I can see why the FARC elected him as their spokesman. He broke down when he spoke of Jaime Pardo Leal, with whom he was to meet in Bogotá the day before Pardo was assassinated.)
The Prosecution, by contrast, had 20 witnesses, most of them flown up from Colombia. They went out of their way (it was so obvious in the case of a Colombian Army colonel that the jury laughed) to use terms of the times: terrorist, narco-terrorist, criminal, and so on. They were instructed well. The Prosecution also brought a young woman, allegedly Simón’s radio operator who entered the FARC at age 8 and begin working the radio (a girl on the radio at this age was totally unbelievable). Simón flatly denied this. Evidence was very strong that the Prosecution, and the Colombian Government, had arranged for the content of this testimony. A poor girl, she was probably given something in return. She, like Simón, is also a victim. In a word, the trial was as dirty as the war itself, and the US wallowed in the dirt.
If the jury decides against Simón, I don’t see the Americans being released any time soon. I don’t know how it might affect the swap of the other prisoners.
Take care, Adam.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Perhaps “Simon Trinidad” might not be guilty, strictly speaking, of most of the specific charges that the U.S. prosecution has arrayed against him, that’s certainly possible, but he’s certainly guilty of many other things, even if they are not relevant to his U.S. trial(s).
That being the case, forgive me, but I will shed not a tear at Mr. Palmera’s being treated unfairly.
At the very least, his organization has also treated plenty of people far more unfairly, so there’s a lot of irony in this. Perhaps Trinidad is one of the better FARC members, and maybe his reasons for joining FARC are relatively understandable, but that hardly makes him worthy of more than token sympathy, in my opinion.
By the way, maybe it’s just me, but I think I could make a relatively random guess as to who your colleague is, though I’ll obviously keep that guess to myself.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:14 am
To make a longer post shorter, while I can understand that Mr. Palmera may not be treated in exactly the fairest manner during this particular trial, considering the specific charges involved, but he and the rest of his organization aren’t exactly in the best position to speak about fairness. I therefore won’t give the man more than token sympathy.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
It’s not a matter of whether or not Simón Trinidad is getting treated badly. The question is whether impressions of unfairness may have influenced the members of a jury who probably know little about Colombia and its conflict. If my correspondent’s point about the trial appearing politicized and slanted was shared by some members of the jury, then that could explain the hung jury result announced today.
In its zeal to see Trinidad locked up, did the prosecution snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Who knows – but the message from my colleague (who by the way is not a FARC supporter) indicates that it’s a possibility.
November 21st, 2006 at 7:27 pm
I don’t really disagree with your point. In fact, it’s true that the trial did seem heavily politicized to begin with. That probably did play a role in the declaration of mistrial and the prosecution probably did feel far too overconfident and slipped up. Perhaps even when bringing up the specific charges, before the trial. I can agree on that easily enough.
The thing is that, personally, as I indicated before, I still couldn’t care less about what happens to Mr. Palmera, being who and what he is. That’s my own opinion, nothing more. You could even call it my bias, if you want.
For the record, I wasn’t implicitly accusing your colleague of being a FARC supporter. In fact, if it were the person I’m thinking of, that doesn’t appear to be the case, as far as I can tell.
But, however, I’ll re-state that I have less sympathy for Mr. Palmera’s plight than what your colleague’s text indicates. That is no crime, of course, it’s simply a different opinion. I respect and tolerate that, in spite of my personal concept.