The trial of a lawsuit alleging a Virginia-based military contractor’s liability for abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq two decades ago has resulted in a deadlocked jury. The eight-person civil jury has deliberated for three full days in the case, which is the first time a U.S. jury has heard claims of mistreatment brought by survivors of Abu Ghraib. Three former detainees sued Reston-based contractor CACI, accusing the company of contributing to their mistreatment when they were imprisoned at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004. CACI supplied civilian interrogators to work at the prison, supporting U.S. Army soldiers who were shorthanded. The abuse at Abu Ghraib, captured in shocking photos, became a scandal 20 years ago.
The jury, after extensive discussions of the evidence, sent a note indicating they were still not unanimous on any decision. Despite this, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the jurors to continue deliberating. The jury was sent home early on Friday afternoon and will resume their deliberations on Monday morning. The jury has asked multiple questions about applying the “borrowed servants” doctrine, a legal principle that CACI has invoked as a defense, arguing that it should not be liable for the actions of its employees if they were under the control of the Army.
One of the key points of contention in the trial has been the issue of who controlled CACI interrogators during the time of the alleged misconduct. While CACI officials testified that they had turned over supervision of the interrogators to the Army, the plaintiffs’ lawyers presented evidence, including CACI’s contract with the Army, that suggested otherwise. The Army Field Manual also indicates that only contractors may supervise and give direction to their employees. This debate over control has been a significant focus of the trial, with both sides presenting arguments about the scope of the “borrowed servants” doctrine.
The legal wrangling over whether CACI could be sued has spanned more than 15 years, leading to this trial and the jurors’ deliberations. The plaintiffs have argued that CACI interrogators contributed to their mistreatment by conspiring with soldiers to mistreat inmates in order to “soften them up” for questioning. While the jury has struggled to reach a unanimous decision, Judge Brinkema has instructed them to continue their deliberations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the accountability of military contractors in cases of alleged human rights abuses. The trial is a rare opportunity for survivors of Abu Ghraib to seek justice through the U.S. legal system.
