USA v. Roy M. Belfast, Jr. - Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: Roy M. Belfast, Jr., a/k/a Charles McArthur Emmanuel, a/k/a Charles Taylor, Jr., a/k/a Chuckie Taylor, II (“Emmanuel”), appeals his convictions and 97- year sentence for committing numerous acts of torture and other atrocities in Liberia between 1999 and 2003, during the presidency of his father, Charles Taylor. Emmanuel, who is the first individual to be prosecuted under the Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340-2340A (“the Torture Act”), seeks reversal of his convictions on the ground that the Torture Act is unconstitutional. Primarily, Emmanuel contends that congressional authority to pass the Torture Act derives solely from the United States’s obligations as a signatory to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (the “CAT”); he says the Torture Act impermissibly exceeds the bounds of that authority, both in its definition of torture and its proscription against conspiracies to commit torture. Emmanuel also challenges his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which criminalizes the use or possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. He says, among other things, that this provision cannot apply extraterritorially to his actions in Liberia. Finally, he claims that an accumulation of procedural errors made his trial fundamentally unfair, and that the district court erred in sentencing him. 2
After thorough review, we conclude that all of Emmanuel’s convictions are constitutional. The United States validly adopted the CAT pursuant to the President’s Article II treaty-making authority, and it was well within Congress’s power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to criminalize both torture, as defined by the Torture Act, and conspiracy to commit torture. Furthermore, we hold that both the Torture Act and the firearm statute apply to extraterritorial conduct, and that their application in this case was proper. Finally, we conclude that Emmanuel’s trial and the resulting convictions were not rendered fundamentally unfair by any evidentiary or other procedural errors, and that his sentence is without error. Accordingly, we affirm Emmanuel’s convictions and sentence in all respects. I. The facts of this case are riddled with extraordinary cruelty and evil. The defendant, Charles McArthur Emmanuel, was born in Massachusetts in 1977, the son of Bernice Yolanda Emmanuel and Charles Taylor. Taylor returned to his native Liberia sometime thereafter. Emmanuel’s mother married Roy Belfast in 1983. Apparently out of fear that Taylor would try to take her son, Bernice Emmanuel moved with him and Belfast to Orlando, FL. There, the couple also changed Emmanuel’s name to Roy Belfast, Jr. 3
Page 1: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEA
Page 5 and 6: “educational” training facility
Page 7 and 8: with their guns, bound them “tabi
Page 9 and 10: stabbed both mens’ legs -- and Tu
Page 11 and 12: said he would not because he did no
Page 13 and 14: Liberia and lives with residual sca
Page 15 and 16: Monrovia for ten months. Dulleh was
Page 17 and 18: entourage to “take care of” Kam
Page 19 and 20: Liberia against seven unnamed victi
Page 21 and 22: the substantive counts (Counts Thre
Page 23 and 24: eference to § 2A1.1, the district
Page 25 and 26: mentioned. President Clinton deposi
Page 27 and 28: or attempts to commit torture shall
Page 29 and 30: “specific[] inten[tion] to inflic
Page 31 and 32: implementation of a constitutionall
Page 33 and 34: Id. at 1459. It follows generally t
Page 35 and 36: etween the Hostage Taking Conventio
Page 37 and 38: illustrate the common motivations t
Page 39 and 40: attempt to commit torture . . . .
Page 41 and 42: [t]he use of torture in wartime is
Page 43 and 44: authorized by the CAT or any other
Page 45 and 46: (quotation marks and citations omit
Page 47 and 48: of torture itself, but also conduct
Page 49 and 50: dominance from dissenters. In recog
Page 51 and 52: Frank, 599 F.3d 1221, 1230 (11th Ci
Page 53 and 54:
after the fact of a crime, depends
Page 55 and 56:
not require a conclusion other than
Page 57 and 58:
issue, there can be no plain error
Page 59 and 60:
egan his cross-examination of Kpade
Page 61 and 62:
contemporaneously to the startling
Page 63 and 64:
However, as we have already explain
Page 65 and 66:
First, the document was properly au
Page 67 and 68:
the ATU beat or kill anyone and, ag
Page 69 and 70:
Nor did the district court abuse it
Page 71 and 72:
fundamentally unfair.” United Sta
Page 73 and 74:
following acts are proved beyond a
Page 75 and 76:
crime. Accordingly, the Torture Mem
Page 77 and 78:
of 43, which directed a Guidelines
Page 79 and 80:
tortured at those locations. Thus,
Page 81 and 82:
locations, including the prison pit
Page 83 and 84:
intimidate them with random killing
Page 85 and 86:
was sentenced only for committing t
Page 87:
In sum, we affirm Emmanuel’s conv
show all

USA v. Roy M. Belfast, Jr. - Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?