Defense Lawyers Warn Prosecution’s ‘Attempt To Politicize Juror Inquiry Is Unprecedented’
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- Yet another legal dramatic twist has happened in the ongoing Capitol Building Arson trial, with the Criminal Court “A” upholding the prosecution’s recent motion to disband the Jury in the case involving former House Speaker, Cllr. Fonati Koffa, three other sitting Lawmakers and several other defendants.
The Criminal Court “A”. presided over by Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, formerly disbanded the jury panel following a motion filed by the Prosecution.
In his ruling, Judge Willie said, his decision to disband the jury panel is based on the integrity of the trial which could be compromised if the current jury penal now disband remains empaneled.
Judge Willie granted the motion and ordered that a new jury selection process be initiated immediately to avoid delays in the high-profile arson case.
The disbandment of the jury panel followed a motion filed by prosecution alleging juror misconduct, something the defense has sharply challenged and claimed that it is an attack on the integrity of the jury.
The prosecution’s motion came from a backdrop of an incident dated on December 22, when a juror requested a replay of a video recorded on November 10, 2024. After the video was replayed in open court, the juror further questioned prosecution witness Reafel Wilson to identify one of the defendants, Thomas Etheridge.
During witness Wilson identification of the video footage, the juror mentioned that the individual shown in the video appeared to be a Chinese man and questioned whether the person in the footage and the defendant was the same.
The juror question above has made prosecution to be believed that this exchange, along with other questions posed during Wilson’s testimony, needs serious attention that jurors may have been consulting among themselves.
In resisting prosecution’s motion, defense lawyers vehemently rejected those claims on record during the arguments on Monday, December 29, 2025, urging the court to deny and dismiss the motion.
The defense indicated that the prosecution failed and refused to present any concrete evidence of juror misconduct or identify any action that violated the law or the court’s instructions.
According to the defense, jurors are permitted to ask questions for clarification, and such participation demonstrates attentiveness rather than impropriety.
Defense Counsel described the prosecution’s allegations as “false, misleading, and unsupported by evidence,” arguing that dissatisfaction with juror questions does not meet the legal required for the extraordinary remedy of disbanding a jury.
The defense further characterized the motion as an unwarranted attack on the integrity of the jury panel and, indirectly, on the authority of the court that empaneled and instructed the jurors. They emphasized that there is no evidence any juror was influenced, intimidated, or interfered with during the trial.
Addressing the specific juror referenced by the prosecution, the defense argued that the questions raised were neither illegal nor prejudicial and fell squarely within the juror’s duty to assess the evidence and seek clarity in the pursuit of justice.
The defense also warned that the prosecution’s attempt to politicize juror inquiry is unprecedented and contrary to the principles of a fair trial, cautioning that such actions could undermine public confidence in the judicial process.