The first judicial Circuit, Criminal Court ‘A’ has declared a mistrial and dismissed the entire panel of jurors in the high-profile Capitol arson case, citing juror bias, misconduct, and inflammatory statements made in open court that, according to the judge, irreparably contaminated the jury.
The ruling has drawn strong objections from defense lawyers, who argue that the decision was unjustified and have moved for the defendants’ release on bail.
Court’s Ruling: Juror Bias and Manifest Necessity
In a detailed ruling delivered on Friday, January 2, 2026, Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie held that “manifest necessity” required the dismissal of the jury and the declaration of a mistrial. Central to the Court’s decision was the conduct of Juryman No. 130-9863, who, during the presentation of prosecution evidence, openly stated that a person identified by a prosecution witness as defendant Thomas Isaac Etheridge in a video recording “looked like a Chinese man” and not Etheridge.
The Court found that this statement amounted to the formation of a fixed opinion before the close of evidence and final instructions, in violation of a juror’s duty to remain impartial.
The judge Willie noted that the comment was made in the presence of the entire jury panel, the parties, and the Court, thereby contaminating the jury as a whole.
In addition, Judge Willie ruled that inflammatory statements made by both prosecution and defense counsel during arguments over juror disbandment-statements describing jurors as “incompetent,” “worthless,” or accusing counsel and the judge of impropriety, were improper and prejudicial.
“Because these statements were made while the jurors were already seated, the Court found that sequestration came too late to prevent contamination,” Judge Willie noted.
Citing both criminal and civil procedure laws and Supreme Court precedent, including RL v. Smith et al., the Court held that the combination of juror misconduct and inflammatory courtroom exchanges constituted a “sudden and overwhelming emergency” making a fair verdict impossible. As a result, the Court dismissed the jury, declared a mistrial, and ordered that the case be retried at a later term.
The Court further ruled that the mistrial does not bar a future prosecution, as termination was based on manifest necessity rather than prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial.
Prosecution’s Position: Jury Independence Compromised
The Prosecution welcomed the Court’s ruling, arguing that the integrity of the trial had already been undermined.
Prosecutors contended that several jurors were observed exchanging questions and consulting with one another during the questioning of the prosecution’s first witness, in violation of jury rules requiring independent judgment.
According to the Prosecution, the conduct of Juryman No. 130-9863, forming and expressing an opinion about a key piece of evidence before the close of the case-demonstrated that the jury could no longer serve as impartial fact-finders. Prosecutors further maintained that allowing such a jury to continue would amount to a “travesty of justice.”
The Prosecution emphasized that jurors are legally required to withhold final judgment until all evidence is presented, closing arguments are made, and the Court instructs the jury on the law. Any deviation from this duty, they argued, threatens the fairness of the proceedings.
Defense Objections: ‘Unprovoked Attack’ on Jurors
Defense counsel vehemently objected to the mistrial and jury dismissal, placing their objections on the record and giving notice of appeal.
The Defense argued that the Prosecution’s motion to disband the jury was procedurally defective because it was not supported by a sworn affidavit verifying the allegations of juror misconduct.
Defense lawyers also rejected the claim that Juryman No. 130-9863 had formed a fixed opinion, asserting that his comments were framed as questions intended to clarify evidence rather than conclusions. They further argued that even if one juror erred, such conduct could not lawfully be imputed to the entire panel.
Characterizing the prosecution’s motion as a “scathing and unprovoked attack on patriotic citizens,” the Defense accused the Prosecution of attempting to salvage a weakened case exposed during cross-examination.
Defense counsel also criticized the timing of the motion, noting that it was made in the presence of the jurors, which they argued itself contributed to any alleged contamination.
Defense Seeks Bail Following Mistrial
Following the Court’s ruling, the Defense moved for the defendants to be admitted to bail, arguing that continued detention would be unjust given the abrupt termination of the trial.
Defense counsel noted that the defendants were previously granted criminal appearance bonds, had produced qualified sureties, and had complied with all court requirements.
The Defense further argued that, with the prosecution’s evidence now fully disclosed, the defendants posed no flight risk and remained entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence pending retrial.
The Court has not yet ruled on the bail application.
With the mistrial declared, the case is expected to be re-docketed for a new trial in a subsequent term of court. Meanwhile, the Defense has signaled its intent to challenge the mistrial ruling through available legal remedies.
As the matter moves forward, the case continues to raise significant questions about juror conduct, courtroom decorum, and the balance between safeguarding fair trials and protecting the rights of accused persons under Liberian law.
