State lawyers wants capitol Arson jurors disband
In the ongoing capitol Arson case state lawyers has filed a motion praying the court to disband the petit and order the immediate constitution of a new trial jury in keeping with law. The motion filed on Monday December 29, 2025 Prosecution applies to the court to dissolute the current jury on grounds that the Prosecution has observed with utter dismay and consternation that the current venire of trial/petit jury has proven to be incompetent in rendering unbiased, independent, and impartial verdicts in the current Capitol Building Arson trial.
They further submitted and contends that on Monday, December 22, 2025; 36th day of jury sitting, during the time and period of the jury’s questioning, it was overtly observed that the behavior of a good number of the fourteen trial jurors exhibited behavior and acts pointing to the fact that they lack the resolve and ability to exercise independent judgment; "During the same time aforementioned, the jurors, during the period of their questioning of the Prosecution’s first witness, in person of Chief Superintendent Rafael A. Wilson, of the Liberia National Police, could be clearly seen exchanging questions and having consultation with each other before asking questions. Those exchanges bring into serious question whether or not the current venire of petit/trial jurors are capable of rendering an independent and impartial verdict, consistent with law and the weight of the evidence to be produced during the pendency of this very important trial;the state lawyers added.
The state quoted Section 19 of the Jury Procedures Manual of the Judicial Branch of the Liberian Government, which provides: “Sequestration is the isolation of a jury to avoid accidental or deliberate tainting. Although sequestration is rare, publicity surrounding a trial and interested parties may interfere with juror objectivity; a judge may order that a jury be sequestered in order to prevent others from tampering with members of the jury through undue persuasion, threats, or bribes.” According to Prosecution in their motion they said that while the latter reasoning is true and legal, it becomes much more dangerous for an undiluted and transparent trial, where the jurors, by reason of their lack of determination to make an independent judgment, is glaring.
Furthermore, Prosecution contends staunchly and sternly that as if the previous conduct of some of the trial jurors was not sufficient to render their service in these proceedings as worthless and prejudicial to prosecution’s case; jury man J30-9863, on Monday, December 22, 2025, same being the 36th Jury Sitting, requested in his question to Prosecution’s First Witness to have the November 10, 2024, audio/Video recording replayed showing the desecration of the Joint Chambers of the National Legislature to which the witness had earlier testified.
Prosecution further mentioned in her motion that in responding to the witness’s answer, jury member J30-9863 concluded and formed an opinion by saying the individual in the video shown is a Chinese man and not Etheridge. In response to the prosecution motion defense lawyers said , jurors are permitted to ask questions for clarification, and such participation demonstrates attentiveness rather than impropriety. They further described the prosecution’s allegations as “false, misleading, and unsupported by evidence,” arguing that dissatisfaction with juror questions does not meet the legal required for the extraordinary remedy of disbanding a jury. The defense further characterized the motion as an unwarranted attack on the integrity of the jury panel and, indirectly, on the authority of the court that empaneled and instructed the jurors. They emphasized that there is no evidence any juror was influenced, intimidated, or interfered with during the trial.
Addressing the specific juror referenced by the prosecution, the defense argued that the questions raised were neither illegal nor prejudicial and fell squarely within the juror’s duty to assess the evidence and seek clarity in the pursuit of justice. The defense also warned that the prosecution’s attempt to politicize juror inquiry is unprecedented and contrary to the principles of a fair trial, cautioning that such actions could undermine public confidence in the judicial process. Judge Willie has not yet ruled on the motion. A decision is expected on Friday, January 2, 2026, which will determine whether the trial proceeds with the current jury or whether the panel will be disbanded.
Author: Melvin Jackson
