United States v. Charles Emmanuel

2007 WL 2002452 (2007)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Charles Emmanuel

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
2007 WL 2002452 (2007)


In December 1984, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention). After reviews by the Senate, President Clinton deposited the treaty for ratification in 1994, subject to certain understandings and restrictions. The Convention was not intended to be self-executing, and therefore, to comply with its obligations, the United States enacted the Torture Convention Implementation Act (Torture Act), 18 U.S.C. § 2340A. The Torture Act criminalized acts of torture committed outside the United States if the offender was a U.S. national or, regardless of nationality, was present in the United States. The Torture Act defined torture as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control.” This definition was slightly different from that in the Convention, which adds that the suffering is inflicted for purposes of intimidation or obtaining a confession. In March 2006, Charles Emmanuel (defendant), the son of Liberian President Charles Taylor, was arrested when he attempted to enter the United States with a passport obtained through false statements. Emmanuel pled guilty and was imprisoned. The following year, a grand jury returned an indictment against Emmanuel, charging him with participating in acts of torture in Liberia between 1999 and 2003, based on his presence in the United States. By virtue of his relationship with his father, Emmanuel had authority over various units of Liberian police forces. During 2002, a number of groups opposed Emmanuel’s father, and Emmanuel conspired to commit acts of torture on an unnamed individual in Liberia to gain information about members of those opposition groups. The acts included forcing the victim to hold scalding water in his hands and shocking the victim. Emmanuel moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 2340A is unconstitutional, because (1) Congress lacked the power to implement it, and (2) it is unconstitutionally vague.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Altonaga, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership