Monrovia — The prosecution team in the Charloe Musu murder case admitted before the Supreme Court that their evidence was based on assumptions.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices rigorously questioned the prosecutors in the murder trial of former Chief Justice Gloria Musu-Scott and three family members. The justices specifically probed the DNA analysis conducted by Liberian pathologist Dr. Benedict Kolee, inquiring if it connected any defendants to the crimes of murder, criminal conspiracy, and making false statements to law enforcement.
Prosecutor Cllr. Bobby Livingstone conceded that the case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, as the defendants could not identify the perpetrator. The justices criticized this reliance, highlighting it was based more on presumption than solid evidence.
Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh and Associate Justice Jamesetta Wolokollie pressed Livingstone on whether all defendants were involved in the actual stabbing of Charloe Musu. Livingstone responded that there were no signs of forced entry at the home, and the prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence to implicate all defendants.
Defense counsel and former Associate Justice Kabineh Ja'neh raised five key issues during the appeal before the high court. He questioned whether the state met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for a murder conviction and whether they established a prima facie case justifying a conviction. He argued the evidence presented did not convincingly implicate the defendants.
Ja'neh also criticized the trial judge's denial of the defendants' right to twelve peremptory challenges, arguing it compromised their right to a fair trial. Additionally, he contended that removing Cllr. Gloria Musu-Scott from her defense team violated her constitutional right to choose her legal representation. Ja'neh further argued that the trial judge's refusal to disband the jury, despite evidence of improper contact with state prosecutors, prejudiced the defendants and denied them a fair trial. He asserted that the state failed to present any eyewitnesses and relied on conflicting forensic and circumstantial evidence, which did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The hearing stemmed from a bill of exceptions filed by former Justice Scott's lawyers seeking to overturn the jurors' guilty verdict. During the arguments, defense lawyers questioned whether the state met the evidentiary standard of proof for murder and whether the trial judge's errors deprived the defendants of their rights to twelve peremptory challenges. They also contended that Judge Roosevelt Willie violated the law by not disbanding the jury despite evidence of improper contact with state prosecutors.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
In response, the prosecution dismissed claims that the defendants were not provided due process as required by law. They argued that the issue of jury tampering was investigated and dismissed at the lower court level. The prosecution added that it was implausible that five people could be in a house without an intruder, yet only one person was stabbed.
Key questions were raised by the full bench of the Supreme Court regarding how the four defendants were linked to the murder of Charloe Musu. Justice Wolokollie questioned how the deceased was stabbed nine times, asking if multiple knives were involved or if the co-defendants used one knife at different times. This question remained unanswered.
Chief Justice Yuoh emphasized that in a criminal case, the law requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense lawyers presented a 100-count bill of exceptions, arguing that the government provided a clinical pathologist instead of a forensic pathologist. They noted that the government pathologist found only female chromosomes during the autopsy, with a very small male chromosome discarded by the pathologist.
