The prosecution, represented by the Ministry of Justice, relied heavily on the testimony of its first witness, Rafael Wilson, a criminal investigator with the Liberia National Police. Wilson's testimony under cross-examination revealed major limitations in the forensic investigation conducted at the crime scene.
A key focus of the defense's cross-examination was the lack of forensic fingerprint analysis on critical evidence, specifically a Clora bottle and a matchbox retrieved from the scene.
Investigator Wilson admitted in open court that no scientific fingerprint tests were performed on these items.
He explained that forensic technicians determined it was impossible to conduct such analysis because the Clora bottle was made of rubber, which does not retain fingerprints in a way that can be analyzed using standard techniques.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Wilson stated: "The Clora bottle and matchbox are a raw surface, and as such, we couldn't conduct print. Furthermore, the forensic technician told us that it was impossible to conduct a forensic fingerprint analysis or to establish a fingerprint. So, we didn't conduct a forensic fingerprint investigation."
The defense seized on these admissions, questioning the legitimacy of the prosecution's case. They argued that, under normal circumstances, handling such objects should leave fingerprints, and it is standard for investigators to use gloves, collect all potential evidence, and submit them for scientific analysis.
By failing to follow this protocol, the defense contended, the prosecution had no scientific basis to link the defendants to the crime.
The defense pressed further, asking on what legal grounds the government could claim the defendants' involvement in the absence of fingerprint evidence.
This line of questioning highlighted the importance of forensic procedures in establishing guilt or innocence in criminal trials.
Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie ultimately overruled the defense's questions regarding the lack of forensic evidence. The judge noted that, according to the witness, there was documentary and oral evidence that prompted the charging of the defendants, thus allowing the prosecution's case to proceed.
Before cross-examination, the prosecution had presented the police charge sheet and the investigation report for admission into evidence.
However, the defense objected, arguing that these documents had not been disclosed during discovery, which they claimed violated legal procedure.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The judge denied their objection but granted the defense's request for printed, reliable copies of the documents, ensuring they could prepare an effective cross-examination. Edited by Othello B. Garblah.
