Since the guilty verdict against defendant Gloria Scott and her three other relatives over their involvement in to the death of her daughter Charlotte Musu, there have been more confusion surrounding the jurors’ decision in accordance with the law.
However, the fundamental purpose of jurors is to impartially assess the evidence presented during a trial and arrive at a fair and just verdict but in this specific case, many Liberians are now analyzing with perplex whether or not the jurors effectively fulfilled this role as judges of facts.
Defendant Musu Scott and her co-defendants who were on trial for multiple criminal charges including murder were adjudged guilty by the trial Jury following months of legal arguments by prosecution and defense lawyers with exhaustive evidences.
It can be recalled that on February 22, 2023, Charloe was allegedly murdered at her residence in the Brewerville suburb of Monrovia and as a result of the girl’s death, both defendant Scott and her three co-defendants who stood accused of the crime pleaded not guilty in the early stage of the trial.
Accordingly, the case Barclay v Digen; 39 LLR 774 (1999), the Supreme Court opined in syllable 1 that “A jury is certain number of men and women selected according to law, and sworn to inquire of certain matters of fact and declare the truth upon evidence to be laid before them.”
In syllable 2 it continued that “The role of the jurors is to try the cause of action and render a verdict according to law and evidence. That is to say the duty of the jury is to listen to the facts, consider the evidence produced in support of the facts presented, and render a true verdict, which will support the evidence presented and the law applicable to the condition or circumstances occasioned by the facts.”
The trial began on August 28, 2023 during the August Term of court even though it was transferred from the Monrovia City Court in June for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the co-defendants were all as well as denied bail bond and remanded to the Monrovia Central Prison.
Prior to the hearing of the case, the petit jurors were selected and the trial began with the government lawyers proving their case thus producing materials, documentaries and oral evidence followed by the defense in similar manner before the jurors.
Around mid-September, about two weeks into the trial, there was an allegation of unauthorized hour visit to the jury quarters by the Solicitor General (SG), Nyanati Tuan and that was investigated resulting to the SG being fined US$250 and suspended from further participating in the trial but the judges of fact remained.
The decision was however based on the admission of the SG to the fact that he went there to encourage the assigned police officers to be vigilant on grounds that he never wanted the repetition of what happened in the US$100 Million drugs case that the government lost.
Even though the defense made a strong case of jury tampering during the investigation, the court ruled otherwise reasoning that the SG’s action didn’t amount to jury tampering since defense did not prove his direct interaction with the jury in part or whole.
Despite its ruling, the court was inclined to fine SG Tuan and barred him from the trial.
More interestingly, after the saga involving the S.G alleged attempt to meet the jurors, it became noticeable the change in the behaviors of the jurors during the rest of the trial.
Notwithstanding, the jurors during arguments were very attentive and were even seen taking notes and asking questions during the presentation of prosecution’s side of the case.
But during the presentation of the defense’s side, jurors did not take notes, did not ask questions but rather many of them were chewing gums as well as seen going into the toilets more frequently.
Judicial pundits saw it as the jurors showed a clear lack of interest in the defense side of the case, as all most all of them were not really attentive to the case after state prosecution had presented their theory of the case, producing their material, documentary and oral evidence before them.
Meanwhile, after the autopsy on the body of Charloe, concerns were also raised about the clear inconsistency in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies which include the contradiction of the Liberian pathologist during his own testimony.
The Liberian pathologist, Dr. Benedict Kolee suggested that he performed DNA analysis leading to his conclusion that only female DNA were identified from the specimen collected from the crime scene.
This was however vehemently countered by the defense pathologist who proved that what Dr. Kolee did was not DNA analysis but Kolee later admitted that he didn’t perform DNA analysis but rather chromosome analysis.
Dr. Kolee in his rebuttal said that Dr. Matthau Okoye’s report was not scientifically proven and was erroneous.
