In Gloria Scott Murder Trial: Did Jurors Serve The Purpose Of Fact Finders As Contemplated By Law?

FLASHBACK: Ex-Chief Justice Gloria Musu Scott taking the stand in her own defense in the Criminal Court “A”

A Background Report By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com

 TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia-The Charloe Musu murder case, in which former Liberian Chief Justice Gloria Musu Scott and three family members are facing multiple criminal charges including murder,  climaxed last week with final arguments by prosecution and defense lawyers followed by a majority guilty verdict handed down by the petit Jury.

Charloe, daughter of the former Chief Justice, was allegedly murdered on February 22, 2023 at the residence of Cllr. Scott in the Brewerville suburb of Monrovia. Both she and the three other females accused of the crime pleaded not guilty in the early stage of the trial. Ex-Chief Justice Gloria Scott, 3 Others Plead Not Guilty Of Murder On Monday – News Public Trust

In the case Barclay v Digen; 39 LLR 774 (1999) the Supreme Court opined in syllable 1 that “A jury is certain number of men and women selected according to law, and sworn to inquire of certain matters of fact and declare the truth upon evidence to be laid before them.” The question then is “did the jury serve the purpose for which they were constituted by law?

In syllable 2 it continued that “The role of the jurors is to try the cause of action and render a verdict according to law and evidence. That is to say the duty of the jury is to listen to the facts, consider the evidence produced in support of the facts presented, and render a true verdict, which will support the evidence presented and the law applicable to the condition or circumstances occasioned by the facts.”

The late Charloe Musu

Taking into consideration both sides of the case, some said that there was clear inconsistency raised in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies which include the contradiction of the Liberian pathologist in his own testimony. Dr. Kulee, the Liberian pathologist had suggested that he performed DNA analysis leading to his conclusion that only female DNA were identified from the specimen collected from the crime scene. This was controverted vehemently by the defense pathologist who in fact proved that what Dr. Kulee had done was not DNA analysis. Dr. Kulee later admitted that he didn’t perform DNA analysis but rather but chromosome analysis. In the scientific world, it is an established fact that DNA analysis is a very powerful tool in solving crime nowadays.

Since the advent of DNA profiling, DNA has been used as evidence and has become a powerful tool in the field of the criminal law. Often the DNA of an individual may be found on the body of their victim or at the scene of the crime and can help pinpoint that individual as the perpetrator. According to defense pathologist, the DNA found on the body of the late Chaloe Musuwas that a male perpetrator. According to observers, this was a key information that Prosecution had the burden to rebut effectively because it raised a fundamental flaw in their theory that deceased was killed by female perpetrators.

It was interesting to note that most, if not all of the jurors began gaining weight later and putting up attitude and making remarks such as “we’re just waiting for all their plenty talking and we already know what to say or do.”

The lightning speed with which the jury brought her verdict may have been astonishing but not surprising taking into account the facts and circumstances that have been narrated so far. After the final arguments and upon entering their room of deliberation, they spent less than forty minutes and returned an almost unanimous (12-1) guilty verdict in such a high profile case.

This attitude by jurors led many lawyers, human rights organizations and people who went to watch the case concluding that something might have gone wrong. What exactly it was is yet to be determined.

Every time a case goes to court at the circuit level, there are only two choices a defendant has to make concerning how the adjudication will proceed in case that defendant is not willing to plea guilty. Either opt for a jury trial or a bench trial where the judge sits as both judge and jury. Most often defendants will choose to utilize their right to trial by jury as enshrined in Article 21(h) of the Constitution of Liberia. Jury trials are unique because they provide an opportunity for citizens to participate in the process of governing and uphold the constitution. They are also meant to ensure a fair verdict and protect the accused from government power.

As has been said, trial by jury is a constitutional right, and Liberia’s founding fathers believed the right to be tried by a jury of your peers was so important that it merited inclusion in the highest law of the land, the Constitution of Liberia. Serving on a jury is the most direct and impactful way for citizens to connect to the constitution and participate in the process of governing.

Jury trials are also a vital part of our system of checks and balances. Our system of checks and balances means that the judicial branch of government is equal to the other two branches (executive and legislative). Courts can overturn laws or acts of government that violate constitutional rights. Our system of checks and balances requires a strong judicial branch, and a strong judicial branch requires a healthy jury trial option.

Over the years, jury trial has come to be seen by many persons as a mockery to the judicial system; the very system that is supposed to use jury trial as a means of check and balance. Most often the expectations of the public is dashed as “justice” is said to be synonymous to “the highest bidder.”

Speaking to both prosecutors and defense lawyers, the belief is always that in most high profile cases, the jury will be bribed to come out with a verdict. This was exactly the case with the 100 million dollars drugs case that was lost by the government this year.

According to reports in the corridors of the Temple of Justice, prosecutors said that the evidences were just overwhelming and there was no reasons why the Republic of Liberia would have lost that case if not for the fact that huge amounts of money were flying in corridors of Temple of Justice some of which landed in the hands of the jury. But defense lawyers on the other hand are said to have been adamant that the prosecutors, including the Minister of Justice were just crying wolf and trying to play the blame game for screwing up big time.

This seems to be the same scenario now playing in the just ended Gloria Musu Scott case which ended with a majority verdict from the jury in favor of the Republic of Liberia and against the four defendants for the death of Chaloe Musu. Defense lawyers are said to be furious that the jury was tempered with. According to information they claim that the Prosecution’s case was not strong and in fact there were too many doubts which according to Chapter 2, subsection 2.1 of Criminal Procedure Law must have operated in favor of the defendants. But are they also crying wolf now only because they have lost the case? Are the juries always used as scapegoat for lazy lawyering on the side of both Prosecution and Defense especially after losing a case?

There are some ques that can be taken from the just ended trial that may throw light on the speculations which are now rife that something unethical may have happened.

The trial began on August 28, 2023 during the August Term even though it was transferred from the Monrovia City Court in June for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The City Court denied them bail bond and committed them to the Monrovia Central Prison known as South Beach. The defendants were subsequently formally indicted on June 23 by Special Grand Jury and served on June 26, 2023 in their prison cell.

The Petit jurors were selected and the trial began with the State/Prosecution proving its case by producing material, documentary and oral evidence followed by the defense before them, the jurors.

Around mid-September, about two weeks into the trial an allegation of unauthorized odd hour visit to jury quarters by the Solicitor General (SG), Cllr. Nyanati Tuan was reported and investigated resulting to the SG being fined US$250 and suspended from further participating in the trial. The decision was based on the admission of the SG to the fact that he went there to encourage the assigned police officers to be vigilant because he didn’t want the repetition of what happened in the $100 Million drugs case in this one because the government lost that case. During the said investigation, the defense made a strong case of jury tampering but the court ruled otherwise reasoning that the SG’s action didn’t amount to jury tampering since defense didn’t prove his direct interaction with the jury in part or whole. The Police were assigned by the State /Prosecution, a party notwithstanding the presence of the Judicial Security with the mandate of providing security for the judiciary personnel and all its installations. Yet the court was inclined to have fined him $250 and barred him from further participating in the trial.

It is interesting to note that the Ministry of Justice is said to have allocated $130,000.00USD for this single trial. This in fact has caused the Ministry to be unable to allocate any money for prosecution in the whole country for the past two terms of court. This has been confirmed by the fact that since August Term of Court, county attorneys have not received their prosecution fund allotments which enables them to prosecute cases on behalf of the government. So why did the Ministry of Justice took so much interest in this case as to allocate such huge sum at the detriment of entire Prosecution Department of the Ministry? This may be a clue that the Ministry wanted to be financially potent enough so as to win the case at all cost.

Another aspect of the case that is intriguing is that after the saga involving the S.G. it became noticeable that there was a stark difference in the Jurors’ reaction during the presentation of each side of the case. The jurors were very attentive and were even seen taking notes and asking questions during the presentation of Prosecution’s side of the case.

But during the presentation of the Defense’s side of the case, jurors did not take notes, did not ask questions but rather many of them were chewing gums. They were seen also going into the bathroom more frequently. The jurors showed a clear lack of interest in the Defense side of the case. Jurors were not really attentive to the case after state prosecution presented their theory of the case and subsequently produced their material, documentary and oral evidence before them.