After Defendant Bill Jallah Filed Petition For Plea Bargaining
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
Fewer people were in attendance in the courtroom at Criminal Court “B” but a blanket of anxiety was in the air as Judge Wesseh A. Wesseh announced handed down a sentence of life imprisonment for Bill Jallah for killing his girlfriend, Princess Zuo Wesseh late last year.
That fatal incident happened on December 21,2024 at the Fun Factory entertainment center adjacent Kool FM Radio in the Monrovia suburb of Paynesville.
Defendant Bill Jallah was indicted by the grand jury of Montserrado County for the crime of murder and Criminal attempt to commit murder and aggravated assault during the February A.D.2025 term of Court.
His sentence came as the result of a guilty verdict rendered against him by the court after more than four weeks of legal proceedings on September 11,2025.
Defendant Jallah upon the call of the case on August 27,2025, he pleaded guilty to his indictment on charges ranging of Murder, Aggravated Assault and Criminal attempt to commit murder.
Prior to the commencement of the trial, defendant Jallah filed a motion for a plea bargain on August 19,2025 to avoid joining issues with the state.
During the legal proceedings, state prosecutors produced three witnesses while the defendant alone testified on his own behalf. The trial was Bench trial where the served as trial of facts and also for the law.
However, the victim’s mother Ma Waydeh Wesseh and one of his sons including a granddaughter have always been present during the proceedings.
Defendant Jallah was indicted by the grand jury of Montserrado County on March 6,2025.
The court handed down its sentence based on two contentions.
After carefully listening to all of the facts, law citations and circumstances attending this case, the court raised two cardinal issues which will aid in the disposition of this case. Those issues are:
- Whether or not the Prosecution evidence adduced during trial corroborated the defendant’s confusion and as such it is legally sufficient to warrant the conviction of the Defendant who has pleaded GUILTY during arraignment?
- Whether or not a trial court is legally bound to accept a plea bargaining agreement in a murder case?
In the case Wilson Darpul et al. vs. His Honor Williams (2012) LRSC 19(20 February A.D. 2012) Justice Kabinah Ja’neh speaking for the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia said” a murder is a hideous crime condemn by every civilization and faith of persuasion.
This is because the act of murder extinguishes life, unarguably the most precious gift bequeath to humanity. Judge Wesseh reading the judgement said, Life is a uniquely extraordinary treasure of the universe for various reasons: life is that intangible being whose existence is shrouded in the deep seas of mystery.
He further that, the vast and endless field of mysteries surrounding the existence called life seems equally balance by profound deficit of human knowledge and understanding as to its nature and character’.
Continuing, Justice Ja’neh said, ” second, no human ingenuity manifest in incredible scientific advancement has, to date, succeeded in restoring one single lost life. A life once lost remains irretrievable forever.
Hence, sacrosanct is universally acceptable that this exquisite, no human enterprise has proven capable of replacing, be not destroyed by any human being. Consequently, a solemn obligation has devolved on every human society, simply by natural law borne out of sober realization of the irretrievability of lost life, to protect and preserved to every human life.
“Murder therefore demonstrates, unarguably, men gruesome conduct of ultimate disregard for nature’s most precious gift. This is precisely the raison d’etre( a legal word in French which means “ reason for existence”) why every human community attaches the most stringent and grievous penalty where the duty to preserve life is breached”
The New Penal Code of Liberia approved July 19, 1976, section 14.1 defines Murder as follow to wit:
A person is guilty of murder if he:
(a) Purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being; or
(b) Causes the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. A rebuttable presumption that such indifference exists arises if the defendant is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, treason, offenses defined in Sections 11.2 or 11.3 of this title, espionage, sabotage, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, felonious restraint, arson, rape, aggravated involuntary sodomy, escape, piracy, or other felony involving force or danger to human life.
Murder is a felony of the first degree but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death or life imprisonment as provided in Sections 50.5 and 51.3.
This court will now present the issues raised as they are presented; and as to the first issue, that is: “Whether or not the Prosecution evidence adduced during trial corroborated the defendant’s confusion; and as such it is legally sufficient to warrant the conviction of the Defendant who has pleaded GUILTY during arraignment”? The answer is in the affirmative!
During the trial, the State produced witnesses thattestified to their certain knowledge, that the Defendant and the deceased, alone with the Defendant’s sister, arrived at a local entertainment in Duport Road, on January 21, 2024, during the evening hour; and as they were seated after been supplied drinks that were paid for by the defendant, the defendant became more quarrelsome, at which time the deceased decided to leave the conversation and while she was on her way toward the main motor road, the defendant followed her and then stabbed her multiple times on diverse parts of her body, thereby inflicting severe bodily injuries on her peaceful body.
The court says that the evidence provided by the State shown that while the defendant was inflicting the harms on the deceased, his sister who took them to the entertainment arena, on that fateful day decided to intervene; but he also turned on her, by inflicting serious bodily injuries on his sister. In Sammy Dahn case, the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia held that “Malice is not grudge or resentment, or vindictiveness against another alone, but it is also a manifestation of a wicked, evil spirit evoked upon the occasion of the act done.
It is that malevolence which comes from a depraved heart, regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief; and if any act or conduct of the accused is a wicked act or an act denoting depravity at the time, and results in injury to another person, it is a malicious act in law. See also Matierzo Versus Republic 24LLR791(1981, Sly. 11.
Also, the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia has opined that the “evidence in a criminal case against an accused must be so conclusive, and if it be circumstantial, it should be so connected as to positively connect one element within another for a chain of evidence sufficient to lead the mind irresistibly to the conclusion that the accused is the guilty party” 40 LLR, Page 659(2001), Sly. 9, Text @ Pages 680-681. See also (Davies Vs. R.L.).
During the trial, the defendant further admitted his guilty, as he pleaded guilty to the indictment and also forgiveness from the deceased’s family, the government and this court. Under our law.
“Any admission or statement, including a confession of guilt, made by a Defendant during an interrogation, interview, examination, or other inquiry by a peace officer or employee or representative of the Republic shall not be admissible in evidence in a criminal prosecution against him until it is establish by prosecution that it was made voluntarily and the right to be accorded an accused set forth in paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of section 2.2 …” have been complied with…”1LCLR Section 21.4., page 381 Criminal Procedure of Liberia.
Also, the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia has said, “confession of a crime by an accused is admissible into evidence and may be used against him in the prosecution of murder when properly corroborated. 29 LLR, page3 Sly.11, Text at page 14.
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case Flo, Appellant vs. R/L, Appellee 3 (1981), syl. 4 has opined that “The voluntary admission made by a party is evidence against him, even where it does not appear that he was warned by the judge of the penalty he might incur by such admission.”
As to the second issue that is “Whether or not a trial court is legally bound to accept a plea bargaining agreement in a murder trial”? This court says prior to the trial, the Counsel for the Defendant file a Four (4) Counts Plea bargaining agreement.
The proposed agreement among other things said that the defendant has never been held on account of committing a criminal offense and therefore the defendant wishes to benefit from a plea bargaining agreement, which is intended to lessen his sentence.
This court says that Section 16.4 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Liberia provides that “a defendant may plead guilty or not guilty, except that in capital case only a plea of not guilty may be accepted”.
“The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty in another case and shall not accept a plea without…”
The Black’s law Dictionary, Eight Edition, Edited by Bryan A. Garner defines a plea bargaining(agreement) as “a negotiation between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant, where the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or to one of multiple charges in exchange for concession by the prosecutor.
This takes this court to “ the Act To amend Title 26 of the LCLR, Penal law, Chapter 50 Relating to Sentencing and Related matter says” Sentence to death or imprisonment which says ”a person who has been convicted of a felony maybe sentence as follows:” a) for a felony of the first degree to death or life imprisonment, where such penalty is specified by statute, or where not specified, to a definite term of imprisonment to be fixed by the court, the maximum of which shall be ten years” this statute, therefore makes the crime of murder a felony of the first degree; but that a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death or life imprisonment as provided in Sections 50.5 and 51.3.
This court therefore says that the plain meaning of statute makes the crime of murder a capital offense, similar to that of an Armed Robbery.
However, the armed robbery statute gives the trial judge a latitude , when imposing a sentencing, after conviction: Wherein a person who has been convicted of an armed robbery maybe sentenced to fifteen years, but not less than twenty years, wherein during in the course of committing an armed robbery, the defendant inflicts a bodily injury on the victim; or to not less than ten years or not more than fifteen years wherein the victims suffered no bodily injury; in this case, then the perpetrator maybe sentenced between 10 to 15 years. This statute therefore, gives a trial judge freedom as to how to impose a sentence,
However, unlike the armed robbery statute, the statute on murder is very clear and distinct, in that it specified how a person convicted of murder shall be sentenced; either to life imprisonment or death by hanging. This court is not oblivious as to how to impose a sentence as required by the murder statute; as anything short of the required sentence, will be considered as lawmakers, which is not the case, as judges are not lawmakers, but interpreters of the laws.
This court can never find a, in the imposition of sentence on the defendant who has been convicted of the hideous crime of murder; while also inflicting bodily injuries on his sister who was trying to protect him from the law.
This court therefore wishes to reiterate that it can never be a party to be restricted to a mere plea bargaining agreement, wherein this defendant was indicted with the hideous crime of murder, as correctly insinuated in Count Four (4) of the Defendant’s Plea Bargaining Agreement.
While setting aside the proposed plea confusion agreement, this court made it clear that the crime of murder, which was one of the offenses the defendant was indicted with, was a capital offense and therefore the court mandated the reading of the indictment to the defendant so as to state his plea.
From the facts and circumstance, presented by this case, it can be construed that the defendant, with savaged, deprave and premeditated mind, caused, planned and executed his devilish act, of stabbing the deceased to death, after he concealed a deadly weapon, under his sleeves, before he stabbed her multiple times on her peaceful body. Therefore, his proposed confusion plead, should have no room in a civilized society.
This court says that the testimonies of State witnesses were all corroborative beyond all reasonable doubt. Worst of all, the defendant himself admitted to stabbing the deceased multiple times on the various parts of her body which resulted to her death. In the case “Toopoh versus RL (1970) sly. 9., the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia held that “the act and conduct of the accused and the other circumstances and facts attending the homicide may be shown on the question of malice, premeditation and deliberation”.
Finally, the trial was regular and all safeguards of fair and impartial trial were in place and all of the rights of the defendant were properly protected and preserved. Further to this, “a judicial conviction connotes (1) that the offense must be correctly charged in a valid indictment; (2) that only legal evidence should be placed before the jury, or in a case, before a judge, where the judge serves both as a defacto jury and judge, which is asked to convict; and (3) that the evidence thus shifted should be satisfactorily to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt” Francis Lewis v. Republic, 5LLR358.
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this court hereby affirms and confirmsthe guilty verdict entered on the records against Defendant Bill Jallah; in that Defendant Bill Jallah is hereby adjudged guilty of the Crimes of Murder, Aggravated Assault and Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT’.
Meanwhile, the Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the Superintendent of the Monrovia Central Prison to give effect to this court’s ruling.
Ministry of Justice Probation Division Report on defendant Bill Jallah’s character
DEFENDANT’S VERSION
In an interview with Defendant Bill Jallah at the Monrovia Central Prison on September 15, 2025, he informed Probation Officers that, on the 24th of December 2024, he and the victim, Princess Zuo Wesseh met at an entertainment center at the Duport Road Junction along with his (defendant) sister, Kumassa. Defendant said they started drinking but out of sudden he saw himself on the ground, being beating by group of people and later saw himself being held by officers and put behind bars. When further asked, he told Probation Officers that he could not remember anything that led to the demise of the victim who he really used to love. Defendant concluded by saying that he regrets his action that led to the death of the victim and wants the State and her family to grant him pardon.
Community Version’s
In an interview conducted by Probation Officers in defendant’s community, many community dwellers could not speak to defendant’s prior criminal record because he was not frequently seen in the community. According to Mrs. Karmo, the chairlady of the Swakamore community where defendant resided prior to the commission of the crime told probation \Officers that she does not know the defendant and could not speak to his character, while some dwellers who have lived with him for some times told Probation Officers that, the defendant is a very quiet individual who doesn’t get in the way of others in terms of confusion. They concluded that they were surprised to hear that the defendant had killed someone after he left the community.
Probation Officers also spoke with the defendant’s sister; Kumassa Jallah who told Probation Officers that on that day, she noticed that the defendant’s appearance was not looking good when she tried to ask him, he said she is too small to understand what he was going through. According to her, she said from one argument to another between the defendant and the victim, the defendant wanted to hold the deceased. She noticed that the defendant had a knife in his hand so she (Kumassa Jallah) got between them but was stabbed by the defendant and went unconscious. Later when she came through, the next thing she (Kumassa Jallah) noticed was that people started rushing to the victim.
Victim’s Impact Statement
In an interview with Probation Officers via telephone, the victim’s mother, Ma Waydeh Wesseh, (0777241545), told Probation Officers that the death of her daughter (victim), has left her sickly and also facing difficulties in providing for the deceased’s son. According to her, every day that passes by, the twelve year old son of the deceased keeps troubling her that he wants to see his mother.
She further explained that it breaks her heart to see the little boy grieving over the disappearance of his mother. Ma waydeh Wesseh concluded that the death of the victim has left huge financial burden in that she can hardly feed herself and the deceased’s son, and that she wants justice so as to serve as deterrence to others who would like to just take people’s lives away.
Social History
- Family Background
Defendant said, his both parents are alive and hail from Lofa County. Defendant also said he is the second of eight (8) siblings.
Marital Status
Defndant said he is married with two (2) children (girls)
- Evaluation:
Before Your Honor is defendant Bill Jallah, a 39- year-old Liberian charged with the crime of Murder. He is a BSc holder in Accounting. Defendant Mother and Father are alive and hail from Lofa County. Defendant has two children and he is the second of eight (8) siblings.
Defendant doesn’t smoke but drink occasionally. Defendant married with two beautiful kids. Defendant is also a Christian by religion. He is mentally unstable as a result of the crime committed. Defendant is a first time offender. Defendant has admitted guilt and is pleading for mercy. Defendant says that he does not have any military experience.
- Recommendation:
Wherefore and in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Division of Probation and Parole Services recommends that the Court in setting Sentencing option should consider the following:
- That, the defendant is a first-time offender.
- That, the defendant has admitted guilt and is pleading for mercy.
- That, the victim’s family wants justice to be served to the fullest.