By Amos Harris
State prosecutors in the ongoing Capitol Building arson case have filed a formal motion seeking the immediate disbandment of the current petit jury, citing deep-seated concerns regarding juror competence, independence, and impartiality. The motion, filed on Monday, December 29, 2025, by lawyers representing the Government of Liberia (GoL), petitions the court to dissolve the existing panel and order the constitution of a new trial jury in strict accordance with the law.
The prosecution argues that the current venire has demonstrated a clear inability to render unbiased and independent verdicts in this high-profile trial. State lawyers contend that troubling conduct was observed on Monday, December 22, 2025—the 36th day of the jury’s sitting—during the questioning of witnesses. Specifically, the government alleges that several of the fourteen trial jurors displayed behavior suggesting a lack of the resolve and independence necessary to exercise sound judgment.
According to the state’s filing, during the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness, Chief Superintendent Rafael A. Wilson of the Liberia National Police, jurors were observed exchanging questions and consulting with one another before posing inquiries in open court. The prosecution maintains that such collaborative conduct raises serious doubts about the jury’s ability to deliberate individually and deliver a verdict consistent with the law and the weight of the evidence presented.
In support of the motion, the prosecution cited Section 19 of the Jury Procedures Manual of the Judicial Branch of the Liberian Government. While this section defines sequestration as a mechanism to prevent juror tampering and preserve objectivity in high-profile cases, prosecutors argued that the current situation is even more critical. They described the jurors’ actions as a glaring lack of determination to exercise independent judgment.
The prosecution further highlighted the specific conduct of a juror identified as J30-9863. On December 22, this juror requested a replay of an audio-video recording from November 10, 2024, which depicts the desecration of the Joint Chambers of the National Legislature. Prosecutors contend that after the footage was shown, the juror improperly formed and expressed an opinion by concluding that the individual in the video was a Chinese national and not Etheridge, a key figure in the case. State lawyers argue that this constitutes a prejudgment of the evidence and undermines the credibility of the jury’s continued participation.
In a swift response, defense lawyers strongly opposed the motion, arguing that jurors are legally permitted to ask questions for clarification. They maintained that such engagement reflects attentiveness rather than misconduct. The defense characterized the prosecution’s allegations as false, misleading, and unsupported by evidence, asserting that a party’s dissatisfaction with juror questioning does not meet the legal threshold required to disband a duly empaneled jury.
Defense counsel further described the motion as an unwarranted attack on the integrity of the jury and the authority of the court. They emphasized that there is no evidence suggesting any juror has been influenced, intimidated, or improperly interfered with during the proceedings. Regarding the conduct of juror J30-9863, the defense argued that the inquiries were neither illegal nor prejudicial, falling squarely within a juror’s duty to assess evidence in the pursuit of justice.
The defense concluded by warning that the prosecution’s attempt to challenge juror inquiry is unprecedented and risks politicizing the judicial process. They cautioned that such actions could severely undermine public confidence in the fairness of the trial.
Presiding Judge Willie has not yet ruled on the motion. A final decision is expected on Friday, January 2, 2026, which will determine whether the trial continues with the current panel or if the entire jury selection process must begin anew.
Comments are closed.