Would this style of trial hold up in the USA?

Masked woman testifies at Saddam's trial

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, IRAQ � A woman whose identity was kept secret and voice masked took the stand in the trial of Saddam Hussein today, testifying through tears that Saddam's men beat her as a teenager and forced her to take her clothes off.

Saddam sat stone-faced as the woman, identified only as "Witness A," told the court from behind a light blue curtain that she was taken into custody after the 1982 assassination attempt against the former Iraqi president in the town of Dujail.

...

Defense attorneys complained they could not hear her because of the voice distortion. Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin ordered the voice modulator shut off, but then the audience could not hear at all, so Amin ordered a recess, and the modulator was fixed, allowing the press and audience to hear.

Defense attorneys insisted on questioning the witness face to face and demanded that the defendants should also see her. So after she gave her testimony for over an hour, Amin ordered the session closed to the public, pulling screens in front of the press and visitors gallery and cutting the sound.

Amin said that defense attorneys would be told the identity of the witness but they must not pass the information to anyone outside the tribunal.

A second female, Witness B, then took the stand. After the 74-year-old began her testimony, the judge decided the voice modulator wasn't working properly and ordered it turned off and all of the electronic feeds from the courtroom cut, including to the press gallery.

Witnesses have the option of not having their identities revealed as a security measure to protect them against reprisals by Saddam loyalists. The first two witnesses � both males who took the stand Monday � allowed their names to be announced and their pictures shown.

...

May the all those in the US never have to endure the terror inflicted by the government on its own citizens. But if such an awful event overcame the US, it does not seem that unreasonable to take measures to protect the witnesses from reprisals--at least in the initial stages of prosecuting the primary heinous actors.

In many ways, the situation in Iraq is worse than that in post-war Germany. After all the risk of reprisal during the Nuremberg trials was minimal despite the horrific behavior of the Nazis. The Nazis were completely crushed.

[This message was edited by John Stride on 12-06-05 at .]

That is because the seeds of democracy were already in place in Germany.

An interesting note about the Nuernberg trials.....it was a defense to any crime if the defendant could prove that an allied army did they exact same action.

I understood the defense you mention was not recognized--at least at the principal trials. It was one of the most difficult moral issues about the trials, but ultimately the multi-national judges decided to deny the defense.

During the atrocities in Northern Ireland, the Diplock courts (trial without jury) were implemented. It is not unusual to suspend some due process entitlements in times of strife.

[This message was edited by John Stride on 12-06-05 at .]

I don't know how often it worked, but "the Allies did it too" defense was sometimes successful. Submarine officers prosecuted for not rescuing the crew of ships they had just sunk (as required by international law) pointed out that Allied naval forces routinely failed to rescue U-Boat crewmen who made it to the surface.

Several years after the war German commando Otto Skorzeny (spelling?) was prosecuted for wearing Allied uniforms on missions. He called various Allied commandos who testified that they had done the same thing on missions against the Germans. I recall the Court ruled that while you could be shot for fighing in the wrong uniform if caught in the act, it was not the sort of crime, like shooting prisoners, that you could be prosecuted for if you were not caught until after hostilities had ended.

Didn't the Nazis go a little further than fail to rescue? I believe there is evidence their submariners killed unarmed men struggling to stay afloat. If the Allies did the same I have never read of it--but then we won the war.

More on Nuremberg. The defense of acting on orders of superiors was also rejected --if it hadn't been, just about everyone would have walked. But that is not to say defendants didn't try to prevail using these unrecognized defenses--rather like a Texas defendant presenting a "defense" of diminished capacity.

Who of us hasn't heard a defendant say the same thing during trial to the court or his defense attorney when things are going badly?

Saddam Says He Won't Attend 'Unjust Court'

By HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq Waving a finger and pounding his desk, Saddam Hussein told the judges in his trial to "go to hell" and vowed not to return to court Wednesday.

The outburst came at the end of a daylong session Tuesday in which a woman, speaking behind a beige curtain and with her voice disguised, told of beatings, torture and sexual humiliation when she was a teenager at the hands of security agents.

The ousted Iraqi president sat stone-faced and silent while she spoke. But after hours of testimony from the woman and another two witnesses, he exploded with anger.

Saddam, dressed in a dark suit and white shirt and clutching a Quran, complained that he and the seven other defendants were tired and had been deprived of opportunities to shower, have a change of clothes, exercise or go for a smoke.

"This is terrorism," he declared.

Quiz: Under Texas law, can the defendant exclude himself from the trial?

A defendant is required to be present, except that he can voluntarily absent himself after voir dire. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 33.03. When we have defendants disrupting voir dire, we have the capability to pipe the audio into the holdover cells and have successfully convinced the appellate courts that this is "present" for the purposes of art. 33.03. We have also successfully tried a defendant who was gagged and restrained after repeatedly being warned to behave.

Even if he absents himself after voir dire, he must be present for sentencing in a felony case. CCP art. 42.03. In misdemenaor cases, he need not be present for sentencing. CCP art 42.14

[

[This message was edited by John Stride on 12-07-05 at .]