The Criminal Court “B” on Wednesday April 17, 2024 set American Missionary, Lucas Richards, free from answering further to the crimes of Aggravated Assault and Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder as was charged by the Government of Liberia.
In his ruling Judge Nelson Chineh said “It is the holding of this court, considering the facts, circumstances and laws controlling, that the defendant is hereby adjudged not guilty of the crimes.”
“The defendant is hereby ordered discharged from ever answering to these charges and his bail bond, if any, order returned,” the judge further ruled.
Meanwhile, the trial was a bench trial where the judge served as both judge and juror.
Meanwhile, Cllr. Jimmy Saah Bombo in association with the Public Defense office represented the legal interest of Richards while Cllr. Tiawon Saye Gongloe and other state prosecutors represented the state.
It can be recalled that on December 14, 2023, the Government of Liberia indicted Richards and charged him with for the commission of the crimes, ‘Aggravated Assault and Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder; felonies of the 2nd degree.
In the September 14, 2024 indictment, the government accused the American missionary of injecting and dosing the private prosecutrix Jessica Lloyd with unknown substance with an intent to abort her three months pregnancy.
The State further alleged that the indictment the defendant having noticed that the private prosecutrix was helpless and weak as a result of the dosed and injections at about 3pm around the Palm Farm Community in the Township of Dixville, Montserrado County.
According to the indictment, the defendant with criminal intent struck Jessica on her forehead and when she fell on the ground and became unconscious, the defendant got on her unconscious body and began to slash her throat with knife, in an attempt to kill her.
Justifying his ruling, Judge Chineh said, the court does not dispute that the private prosecutrix sustained injuries on September 14, 2023, while she was out with the defendant for a ride but it is the place and time when the injuries were sustained that are disputed.
He added that the only unanswered question was who inflicted the wounds on the victim, Jessica Lloyd and noted that during the trial of the case, there were claims and counterclaims which required thorough investigation by his court.
One of such said claims according to Judge Chineh is that the state is alleging that the wounds were inflicted by the defendant while the defendant, as well as some of the angry crowd are alleging that the wounds were inflicted by another person.
Also Judge Chineh said, some angry crowd stated that the wounds were inflicted by another person particularly Ernest Philip, the boy who was allegedly beaten by some of the angry crowd.
According to Judge Chineh, the evidence before the court also speaks to two persons being beaten by the angry crowd, defendant Richards and Philip.
At the same time, the Judge also said, Philip has also accused defendant Richards of the being the perpetrator of the crimes.
Citing the case, Gussie vs, RL 28LLR276 (1979) during his ruling, the Judge said the evidence which might have supported the charge against the defendant and could have been used, should have been produced at the trial or the defendant be acquitted.
According to him, it is an established law in this jurisdiction that the best evidence which the case admits of must always be produced; that is, no evidence is sufficient which supposes the existence of better evidence. Bah vs. RL, 36LLR541 (1989).
The Judge further ruled that Jessica who testified as general witness told the court that she went off when she was hit and never knew that she was wounded. But when she was asked to serve as one of prosecution’s witnesses Jessica told the court that “No motorbike hit me.”
“It was only Lucas and I in the car and he asked me to help him fix the back tire, while helping him, he hit me from the back of my head and when I fell to the ground trying to wake up and defendant Richards pushed me back to the ground and he started to slay my neck and now you can see the mark on my throat, and if he is saying that I was hit by a motorbike, why my legs are not broken, why I was not treated for any bruises on my skin, there is no mark on my skin and if he says it is motorbike what is he still saying to his lawyers for us to come to his office to give us the amount of US$10,000, that is a wicked man and he wanted to kill me like chicken, he is worse than the devil,” the court narrated.
But addressing himself to Jessica’s two separates statements, the judge explained that for a victim who was unaware of happening around her to become accounting for things that happened to her while she was still in her state of unconsciousness is unusual.
“Secondly, she claimed that there was no motorbike at the scene of the crimes before and after the commission of the crimes while contrary to her assertions, the other state witnesses, Ida Jackson Blamo and Ernest Philip testified to the effect that witness Philip got on a bike to chase after defendant Richards who escaped from the scene,” the Judge remembered adding further that the prosecutor witnesses who spoke to the act of the defendant were not present when the act occurred.
The judge said witnesses Blamo testified that “I was sitting at my shop looking across the road and I saw him and he got down from his car and started to look under his car and later I saw my neighbor’s son crossed the road running and started saying your come ooh, the man killing the girl; so we ran there and when we got there, we saw Jessica and this white man but this man came from the bush first and we saw Jessica bleedings from her neck.”
Judge Chineh also explained that from the records, the principle witness maintained that the defendant did nothing to her.
“This evidence outweigh all other evidence speaking contrary, more especially, in the absence of any evidence that this admission was made under circumstances manifesting threat, fear or inducement. If it is argued that she was unconscious and therefore her testimony need not to be credited than who testimony will corroborate witness Philip’s testimony,” the court wondered.
“Generally, hearsay evidence is not admissible but the Judge also ruled saying, “Therefore, one can conclude that what she is saying, after regaining her consciousness, regarding happening around her while she was in her state of unconsciousness is what she was told by a third party.”
He noted that the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given to their testimonies are matters for the court sitting enbanc to determine before reaching a judgment.
Furthermore, the admissibility of evidence is with the court, but its credibility and effect are with the jury. Simpson vs RL 3 LLR 300 (1932). In criminal case, the evidence must be corroborated to be weighty and reliable. Uncorroborated evidence are insufficient to convict a defendant.
The Criminal Court ‘B’ presiding judge narrated even the holy Bible speaks to corroboration from the mouth of two of or three witnesses, ye shall establish the truth, St. John 8:17 and that the lone testimony of eyewitness Philips without any corroborating evidence linking the defendant to the crime is insufficient to sustain the indictment.
He claimed that the testimonies of Jessica vary from one stage to another, “For instance, before the eyewitnesses at Palm Farm Dixville, Jessica stated Richards did not do anything to her but again, when she appeared as general witness, she testified that when she woke up and was coming out of the dish, she never knew that she was injured or bleeding until one of the ladies who came to her rescue when to her to tie a cloth around her neck to stop the bleeding.”
When she appeared as prosecution’s rebuttal witness, she said Richards hit an iron on her head and subsequently attempted slaying her throat. She also said that she never knew that Richards wanted to kill her until he pulled off from the crime scene.
The variance in Jessica’s testimonies is glaringly.
The court further defines variance as a difference or disagreement between two parts of the same proceeding which ought to be in the consonance.
Yates et al vs RL 2016. The Supreme Court of Liberia held in the case Gissie et al vs RL 28LLR276 1979 that variance in the prosecution’s evidence must be operated in favor of the accused.
“Throughout the entire proceeding, prosecution neglected to produce the criminal instrument that were used in the commission of the crimes charged as well as evidence that are capable of supporting allegations and or charges in the indictment,” the court adjudged.
“Despite the defense application requesting for the bills of particulars, the state failed to account for the knife and iron that were allegedly used by the defendant in the commission of the crimes of Aggravated Assault and Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder,” Judge Chinneh concluded.
