MONROVIA — Prosecutors have admitted to the Supreme Court that former Chief Justice Gloria Musu Scott and her three family members were convicted based on circumstantial evidence, as the government’s DNA analysis did not link them to the crime.
During a recent Supreme Court hearing, it became apparent that the life imprisonment sentences imposed on Justice Scott and her co-defendants may be overturned. The jury of Criminal Court ‘A’ had previously found them guilty of allegedly stabbing Charloe Musu to death with a kitchen knife. Judge Roosevelt Willie sentenced them to life imprisonment immediately following the jury’s unanimous verdict, despite the defendants’ appeals to the Supreme Court.
Lead government lawyer, Cllr. Bobby Livingstone, acknowledged during nearly three hours of argument that the state’s case was based on circumstantial evidence. “Our case theory was based on circumstantial evidence since defendants failed to point out who did the killing,” Livingstone stated.
Circumstantial evidence, which does not directly prove a fact but suggests a logical inference, was the basis for the prosecution’s case. Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh and Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie questioned Cllr. Livingstone on the specifics of the evidence, including whether all defendants used the same knife or separate knives to stab Charloe Musu.
Livingstone’s responses revealed that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on presumption and assumption. He contended that no intruder was discovered during the crime, contrary to the defendants’ claims. When pressed by the justices, Livingstone admitted that the DNA analysis by Liberian pathologist Dr. Benedict Kolee did not link any defendants to the crime.
Justice Yamie Gbeisay questioned Livingstone’s belief in the defendants’ guilt, including Rebecca Yonder Winser, and Justice Yussif Kaba criticized the government’s haste in prosecuting the case without thorough investigation. “I don’t know why you went to prosecute? I’m confused and I’m still waiting to hear on what evidence you used to prosecute those people?” Kaba remarked.
Cllr. Kabineh Ja’neh, arguing on behalf of the defense, emphasized that the prosecution failed to present any eyewitness to the crime and did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. He pointed out discrepancies in the forensic and circumstantial evidence and highlighted that Dr. Kolee, a clinical psychologist, was not a forensic pathologist. Ja’neh argued that the DNA analysis should have identified the perpetrator of the crime, noting that Dr. Kolee found a male DNA chromosome but deemed it insignificant to the crime.
The Supreme Court justices’ probing questions and Livingstone’s inability to directly answer raised concerns suggest that Justice Scott and her co-defendants’ life sentences could be overturned.
Discussion about this post