In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 2002 ______
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 02- In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 2002 __________ WILLIAM P. FORD, ET AL., Petitioner, v. JOSE GUILLERMO GARCIA AND CARLOS EUGENIO VIDES-CASANOVA, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI PHILIP ALLEN LACOVARA (Counsel of Record) SANFORD I. WEISBURST Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (212) 506-2585 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case was brought under the federal Torture Vic- tim Protection Act (TVPA) by the families of four American Churchwomen serving in El Salvador who were kidnapped, raped and murdered by Salvadoran troops under the com- mand of the respondent Salvadoran generals. At trial the judge decided that the families must prove “proximate cause” between the generals’ actions and the specific atrocities committed against the Churchwomen. The court of appeals, by divided vote, declined to consider the merits of the fami- lies’ challenge to this instruction by invoking the so-called “invited error” doctrine. 1. Is the “invited error doctrine” subject to no exceptions, as the Eleventh Circuit held in this case, so that a reviewing court has no power to remedy a judgment tainted by a plain error of law, or does the reviewing court have the power to reach and remedy such errors in the interest of jus- tice, as at least five other circuits have held? 2. Under the tort doctrine of “command responsibility” adopted by the TVPA, must the victim establish “proximate cause” between the commander’s acts and the specific abuse committed against the victim, as the trial court below held, or is proximate causation not an appropriate element of liability, as the Ninth Circuit has held? 3. In a case where liability is predicated on the command responsibility doctrine, does the victim or the commander bear the burden of proving whether the com- mander had the power to control the troops who committed atrocities and failed to take all reasonable measures to control those troops? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING IN THE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED Plaintiffs (Petitioners in this Court) William P. Ford Julia Clarke Keogh James Kazel Michael R. Donovan The Plaintiffs are relatives and representatives of the estates of three nuns and a layperson (“the Churchwomen”) who were raped and murdered in El Salvador: Maryknoll Sister Ita C. Ford Maryknoll Sister Mary Elizabeth “Maura” Clarke Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel Lay Missionary Jean Donovan Defendants (Respondents in this Court) José Guillermo García Carlos Eugenio Vides-Casanova iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................................i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING IN THE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED ..............................................................ii OPINION BELOW ...............................................................1 JURISDICTION....................................................................1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.........................1 STATEMENT .......................................................................2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........................14 I THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION, IN CONFLICT WITH OTHER CIRCUITS, POSES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION REGARDING THE POWER OF APPELLATE COURTS TO REVIEW “INVITED” ERRORS THAT PREJUDICE THE OUTCOME OF A CASE...........................................................14 II THE QUESTION WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT “PROXIMATE CAUSE” IS AN ELEMENT OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION ON WHICH THERE IS A CONFLICT ............20 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page III IT IS IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY DOCTRINE IMPOSES UPON THE VICTIM OR THE COMMANDER THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING WHETHER THE COMMANDER HAD EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER HIS TROOPS AND TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO EXERCISE THAT CONTROL ..................24 IV THIS COURT’S REVIEW IS WARRANTED ...........................................28 CONCLUSION ...................................................................30 APPENDIX Decision Below ...................................................................1a Excerpts from Jury Instructions and Trial Transcript .......30a Order Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc...........34a v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Borden v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 935 F. 2d 370 (1st Cir. 1991) ...........................................18 City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981) ...................................................16, 17 Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 672 F. Supp. 1531 (N.D. Cal. 1987) ................................23 Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) ...........................................................27 Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996).....................................passim In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946) .......................................................25, 26 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977)..............................................27 Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1996)...............................................22 Paul v. Avril, 901 F. Supp. 330 (S.D. Fla. 1994)....................................23 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Prosecutor v. Delalic (Appeals Chamber ICTY, Feb. 20, 2001) ........................26 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Judgment (Trial Chamber ICTY, Nov. 16, 1998).......................13, 22 Romagoza v. Garcia, No. 99-8364, Final Judgments entered July 31, 2002 (S.D. Fla.) ....12, 24 St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) ...................................................27, 28 United States v. Ahmad, 974 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1992)..........................................14 United States v. Barrow, 118 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1997)............................................18 United States v. Fulford, 267 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2001)........................................15 United States v. Green, 272 F.3d 748 (5th Cir. 2001)............................................18 United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74 (4th Cir. 1994)................................................18 United States v. Lemaire, 712 F.2d 944 (5th Cir. 1983)............................................18 United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1991)............................................18 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) United States v. Sharpe, 996 F.2d 125 (6th Cir. 1993)...................................... 13-14 Wilson v. Lindler, 995 F.2d 1256 (4th Cir. 1993)..........................................18 Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. 162 (D. Mass. 1995) ...................................23 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (2002)....................................................1 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2002) ........................................................1 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (2002) ......................................................22 28 U.S.C § 1350 note (2002)..................................................1 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2002) ......................................................15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ...................................................................15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 51 ...........................................................16, 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 .................................................................17 OTHER AUTHORITIES CHOICES OF THE HEART (1983) ............................................29 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Christopher Dickey, El Salvador: Not Today, Not Tomorrow, NEWSWEEK, December 7, 1998.....................29 David Gonzalez, Torture Victims In El Salvador Are Awarded $54 Million, N.Y. TIMES, July 24, 2002 ...........12 Harold Evans, With Friends Like These, in THE AMERICAN CENTURY (1998).................................29 J. WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 2486 (J. Chadbourn rev. ed. 1981)................................27 John M. Goshko, U.S. Halts Salvadoran Aid, WASH. POST, December 6, 1980 ......................................29 JUSTICE AND THE GENERALS (2001) .....................................29 Larry Rohter, 4 Salvadorans Say They Killed U.S. Nuns on Orders of Military, N.Y. TIMES, April 3, 1998 ...........29 Marjorie Hyer, Four Murders Trigger U.S. Catholic Protests, WASH. POST, December 10, 1980 .....................29 Pamela Mercer, Slain Nuns’ Families Sue Salvadoran Generals, N.Y. TIMES, May 13, 1999 ..............................29 S. Rep. No. 102-249 (1991) .................................................21 THE LAW OF WAR ON LAND, MANUAL OF MILITARY LAW (1958) .................................26 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) THE UNITED NATIONS WAR COMMISSION, LAW REPORTS OF TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS, Art. IX, (1948) ...............................................................................27 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL, ARMY LEADERSHIP, BE, KNOW, DO (1999)......................28 OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-29a) is reported as Ford v. Garcia, 289 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2002). JURISDICTION The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2002) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C § 1350 note (2002). The opinion and judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court were entered on April 30, 2002. A timely petition for rehear- ing and rehearing en banc was denied on June 20, 2002. This Court has jurisdiction to review