MONROVIA -- Prosecutors in the Capitol Building arson trial have asked the court to disband the seated jury, arguing that juror questioning of a key state witness crossed legal boundaries and raised concerns of misconduct, a claim the defense has denounced as baseless and dangerous to the integrity of the judicial process.
The motion, now before Criminal Court 'C' Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, arose from an exchange on Dec. 22 after a juror requested a replay of video footage recorded on Nov. 10, 2024, and then questioned the prosecution's first witness, investigator Refael Wilson, about whether one of the individuals shown in the video was defendant Thomas Etheridge.
According to the prosecution, the juror went further, remarking that the person in the footage appeared to be a Chinese man and questioning whether that individual and Etheridge were the same person. Prosecutors contend that the exchange, coupled with other questions posed during Wilson's testimony, suggests jurors may have been consulting among themselves or engaging in premature deliberations, warranting the extraordinary remedy of disbanding the jury.
Defense lawyers strongly rejected that assertion during arguments on Monday, Dec. 29, 2025, urging Judge Willie to deny the motion and dismiss it for lack of evidence.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The defense argued that the prosecution failed to present any concrete proof of juror misconduct or identify a single act that violated the law or the court's instructions. Jurors, counsel said, are permitted to ask questions for clarification, and such participation reflects attentiveness to the evidence rather than impropriety.
Defense counsel described the prosecution's allegations as "false, misleading and unsupported by evidence," stressing that dissatisfaction with juror questioning does not meet the high legal threshold required to disband a duly empaneled jury.
They further warned that the motion amounts to an unwarranted attack on the integrity of the jury panel and, indirectly, on the authority of the court itself. There is no evidence, the defense said, that any juror was influenced, intimidated or interfered with during the trial.
The dispute comes after more than four weeks of testimony in a case marked by intense scrutiny of the state's evidence. After the close of cross-examination of Investigator Wilson, Judge Willie opened the floor to juror questions, many of which focused on the quality, source and sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.
Jurors repeatedly asked whether audio recordings, video footage and photographs formed the core of the state's case. Wilson testified that investigators also relied on voluntary statements, call logs and other investigative materials -- assertions the defense has challenged as unreliable, coerced or unsigned.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Juror questioning also exposed gaps in the investigation. One juror asked whether security officers assigned to the Capitol on the day of the fire were questioned. Wilson testified that several irregularities were uncovered, including officers who were never informed of their deployment, failed to report for duty or cited illness.
Another juror questioned how investigators obtained images shown earlier in a PowerPoint presentation after Wilson testified that there were no CCTV cameras on the Capitol compound. Wilson responded that investigators relied on photographs taken during the investigation, images of the Joint Chambers after the fire, and photos retrieved from Etheridge's mobile phone.
Defense lawyers also renewed objections to several prosecution exhibits, challenging the authenticity and admissibility of key documents and raising concerns about their source, signatures and chain of custody. Medical evidence introduced by the state, they argued, further supported claims of coercion rather than strengthening the prosecution's case.
Judge Willie has reserved ruling on the prosecution's motion until Friday, Jan. 2, 2026, when he is expected to decide whether the trial will proceed with the current jury or take the rare step of dissolving it.
