The Supreme Court will this Wednesday, August 28, 2024 decide the fate of Gloria Musu Scott and three of her family members who are all convicted of Murder.
The high court is also expected to conduct the seating ceremony of newly Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Ceaineh Clinton Johnson though it is yet to be cleared whether the Supreme Court will close for its March term of court while awaiting the opening of the October term of court.
During the argument on July 16, 2024, state prosecutors told the Supreme Court that they convicted former Justice Scott on circumstantial evidence but from the line of questioning by Justices of the Supreme Court, it clearly indicate that the life imprisonment imposed against the Scotts was far-fetched.
The jury of Criminal Court ‘C’ in last year unanimously pronounced Justice Scott and her co-defendants guilty by allegedly using a kitchen knife to stab Charloe Musu to death.
Based on the jury’s verdict, Judge Roosevelt Willie immediately sentenced the defendants to life imprisonment, despite the challenge by the defendants against the judge’s decision wherein they filed an appeal to the highest court and said appeal was argued on Tuesday, July 16.
During the arguments, government’s lead lawyer Bobby Livingstone pressed for the conviction of Musu Scott and her family members on grounds that the state case was based on circumstantial evidence.
While arguing for nearly three hours, Cllr. Livingstone repeated saying, “Our case theory was based on circumstantial evidence since the defendants failed to point out who did the killing.”
Circumstantial evidence is in direct evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists.
At that point, Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh asked Cllr. Livingstone whether all of the defendants took the knife at the same time to stab Charloe.
Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie also inquired from Cllr. Livingstone if the defendants use separate knives to stab Charloe.
“It was by circumstantial evidence that we indicted all of the defendants,” Cllr. Livingstone reiterated and his repeated consistent answer prompted the Justices to establish that the prosecution’s case was based on presumption and assumption and not on prime facie evidence.
But, Livingstone reminded that there was no intruder discovered during the commission of the crimes, as being alleged by the defendants.
Again, the justices asked Cllr. Livingstone to clarify whether the Liberian pathologist Dr. Benedict Kolee DNA analysis linked any of the defendants to the crimes of murder, criminal conspiracy and making false statement to law enforcement officer, as they were charged.
Justice Yamie Gbeisay’s concern was whether all the defendants committed the crime including Rebecca Yonder Winser while Justice Yussif Kaba’s inquired why the police charge sheet or indictment did not point out each role played by the defendants
According to Justice Kaba, the government lawyers rush in prosecuting the case without doing in-depth investigations or going beyond the police reports.
“I don’t know why you went to prosecute? I’m confused and I’m still waiting to hear on what evidence you prosecute these people?” Kaba asked.
Providing suggestion, Justice Kaba recommended that the prosecutors should have concerned themselves with whether or not there was any quarrel among the family prior to the incident.
Cllr. Livingstone could not directly answer the concerns raised by the Justices during the arguments, which presupposes that Justice Scott and her co-defendants life imprisonment could be overturn.
Former Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh, pleading for the defendants, in answering to a question on whether the State establish a prima facie case against the defendants to warrant the entry of a judgment of conviction against them? Replied, “The state lawyers did not present one single eye witness to the perpetration of the crime of murder as alleged in the indictment.”
According to Ja’neh, they proceeded to prove their case, but failed to do so, beyond a reasonable doubt on the strength of conflicting forensic and circumstantial evidence adduced during the trial.
Justice Ja’neh also argued that the Liberian pathologist is a clinical psychologist and not a forensic pathologist and contended further that the DNA analysis should pointed out the perpetrator(s) of the crime
“Dr. Benedict Kolee, who is the government pathologist, admitted that he discovered a male DNA chromosome but he said it was very small which he thinks didn’t contribute to the commission of the crimes.”
