When thinking of the right to due process, we think of the right to a fair trial, with an impartial judge, in some countries we think of a jury of our peers, the right to legal representation, and other similar requirements. However, we rarely think of our lawyer actually having the right to speak on our behalf during that trial as a requirement. It’s almost as if it was somehow implicit that if we are on trial, our lawyer should, at least, be able to speak. Well, it turns out that might not always be the case, which is why I found this piece of news recently published by the BBC particularly interesting: Charles Taylor’s lawyer silenced in war crimes court. According to the BBC, Liberian ex-leader Charles Taylor’s lawyer was temporarily banned from speaking at Taylor’s war crimes trial after losing his temper in court and referring to the prosecutor as a boy.

The BBC does not provide a lot of information as to how much defense attorney Courtenay Griffiths actually lost his temper nor to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of his behavior, and being as Taylor is facing 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which includes training and commanding rebels who brutally murdered, raped, and maimed Sierra Leone civilians, one is tempted to think the judge is doing justice a favor by silencing his defense attorney. My only question is, how appropriate is such action in the context of a criminal case? Does this raise questions regarding protocol in criminal cases? What are the limits of speech in criminal course? And, similarly, how far can judges go to set limits and boundaries in such contexts?

Related Posts:
1. “A Chronicle of Evil:” the Power of Spoken Language in Criminal Trials