The legal team representing Sam Worlobah, the Monrovia-based clinician recently convicted of murder, has filed a formal Motion for New Trial before Criminal Court ‘B’ at the Temple of Justice, citing judicial errors, contradictory witness testimony, and violations of due process.
The motion, filed on September 17, 2025, comes just two days after a unanimous guilty verdict was returned against Worlobah for the death of Samuel Kollie, a patient allegedly under his care at the time of his death.
Grounds for the Motion
The motion, submitted by Attorneys Victoria Weah, Anthony D. Kollie, and Counselor Sennay Carlor, II, outlines several grounds on which the defense believes a new trial is warranted:
Contradictory Testimonies
The defense highlights conflicting accounts given by two key prosecution witnesses:
Mary Kollie, the deceased’s sister, testified that her brother fell ill after eating food following surgery performed by Worlobah. She claimed that he began experiencing stomach pains shortly afterward, leading to his death later that evening.
In contrast, Officer Eddie O. Kun, a supervisor in the Liberia National Police’s Criminal Services Division, stated that Samuel Kollie was already dead upon arrival at the clinic.
The defense argues that this contradiction significantly undermines the prosecution’s narrative and casts reasonable doubt on the timeline and cause of death.
Improper Elevation of Charges
Worlobah was originally charged with manslaughter following a police investigation.
However, the prosecution later escalated the charge to murder, a more serious offense, without what the defense calls the necessary legal basis or supporting evidence.
The defense contends that the state failed to satisfy the legal standard for proving murder and did not provide the “best evidence” as required in capital offense cases.
Judicial Misconduct during Jury Instructions
The defense accuses Presiding Judge Wesser A. Wessel, Sr. of prejudicial conduct during jury instructions.
According to the motion, the judge directed the jury to return either a unanimous guilty verdict or a unanimous not guilty verdict, but failed to inform them about the legal possibility of a hung jury.
Defense attorneys argue that this omission influenced the jury’s decision-making, potentially coercing a unanimous verdict even if individual jurors harbored doubts.
Bias in Courtroom Proceedings
The motion further alleges that the judge quoted extensively from the prosecution’s legal memorandum during jury instructions, a move the defense believes compromised the court’s impartiality.
The defense cites rulings from the Supreme Court of Liberia stating that judges must maintain neutrality and avoid conduct that might be perceived as favoring one side over the other.
Legal Precedents Cited
To bolster their motion, the defense referenced key precedents from Liberia’s Supreme Court:
Jamal Eldine & Frederick Saab v. Republic of Liberia (1978), Affirming the presumption of innocence and reinforcing the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
James Saah v. Republic of Liberia
Emphasizing the judge’s responsibility to protect the rights of the accused and ensure a fair, impartial trial.
Affidavit of Truth
As required by law, Counselor Sennay Carlor, II submitted a sworn affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of the motion’s contents, which was notarized by a Justice of the Peace and accompanied by the requisite $5 revenue stamp.
Criminal Court ‘B’ is expected to review the motion during its August Term. Legal observers suggest the court may:
Grant a new trial,
Modify the jury’s verdict, or
Deny the motion altogether,
Depending on the strength of the arguments and evidence presented.
For now, Worlobah remains in detention pending the court’s decision.
The Republic of Liberia is expected to file its response to the motion within the statutory period.
Public Reaction and Broader Implications
This case continues to capture national attention, especially among legal and medical professionals, amid broader concerns about:
The integrity of police investigations, limits of prosecutorial discretion and the safeguards of judicial impartiality in capital trials.
Observers say the outcome of the motion could have a lasting impact on how courts interpret the rights of defendants and the responsibilities of trial judges in Liberia.
