-To Disband Jury in Capitol Arson Trial
Counsel for the Defendants, through former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia, Counselor M. Wilkins Wright, has petitioned Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie of Criminal Court “A” to overrule and deny the Prosecution’s motion seeking the disbandment of the duly empaneled jury in the Capitol Arson case.
The defense criticized the motion as baseless and an attack on the integrity of the jury.
The prosecution’s motion arises from an incident on December 22, when a juror requested a replay of a video recorded on November 10, 2024. After the footage was replayed in open court, the juror asked prosecution witness Reafel Wilson to identify the defendant, Etheridge. Following the identification, the juror remarked that the individual shown in the video appeared to be “a Chinese man” and not Etheridge,… further asking: “Are these two the same?”.
The prosecution argues that this exchange, along with other questions posed during Wilson’s testimony, raises serious concerns that jurors may have been consulting among themselves and may no longer be capable of rendering an independent and impartial verdict. On that basis, prosecutors asked the court to disband the entire jury panel.
However, in a detailed response, the Defense strongly rejected the Prosecution’s assertions, describing them as false, misleading, and wholly unsupported by evidence. Counselor Wright argued that the Prosecution failed to present any affidavit or competent proof establishing juror misconduct or impropriety, emphasizing that mere dissatisfaction with juror questioning does not meet the legal threshold for dissolving a jury.
The Defense maintained that the motion amounts to an unwarranted attack on the integrity of the jury, noting that jurors are permitted to ask questions for clarification in furtherance of justice and that such conduct does not constitute misconduct.
According to the Defense, the Prosecution cited no statute, rule, or controlling authority that mandates or permits disbanding a jury under the circumstances alleged.
Counsel further argued that there is no evidence that any juror acted improperly, was influenced, intimidated, or interfered with, describing the Prosecution’s claims as conjecture rather than proof. The Defense stressed that the questions attributed to Juror J-309863 were not illegal, prejudicial, or outside the scope of a juror’s duty, but instead demonstrated attentiveness and engagement in the trial process.
Addressing allegations that jurors exchanged notes in open court, the Defense argued that if the Prosecution observed such conduct during the examination of its first witness, it should have raised the issue immediately. The Defense maintained that the allegation is unfounded and unsupported by the record.
On the question “Are these two the same?”, the Defense explained that the inquiry was a fact-finding effort aimed at determining whether the individual in the video evidence was the same person as the defendant in court. The Defense argued that such a question cannot form the basis for juror disqualification and does not constitute any improper juror action.
Counsel also rejected the Prosecution’s attempt to apply comments attributed to one juror to the entire jury panel, stating that no specific detail has been provided to justify disbanding the jury and that no offense was committed by the jurors.
The Defense further accused the Prosecution of misconduct, asserting that filing such a motion in open court was erroneous and amounted to grandstanding and a publicity tactic. According to the Defense, the motion was an attempt by the Prosecution to save face following difficulties encountered during the cross-examination of its witness.
Additionally, the Defense argued that the Prosecution improperly attempted to make the Court a party to the case by claiming that the judge observed juror misconduct, despite the absence of any supporting evidence. Granting the motion, the Defense warned, would unjustly involve the Court as a party and undermine its role as a court of record and justice.
Under Count Eight of its response, the Defense condemned the Prosecution for describing jurors as “worthless” and “useless,” arguing that such language is uncalled-for, uncivilized, and unprofessional.
Based on these arguments, the Defense has prayed the Court to deny, dismiss, and reject the Prosecution’s motion; find that it is unsupported by law or evidence; affirm the integrity and independence of the jury; and grant any further relief the Court deems just, legal, and equitable. Meanwhile, the Criminal Court has reserved ruling on the motion for Friday, January 2, 2026
