Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie of Criminal Court “A”, on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, denied a defense motion to suppress evidence in the high‑stakes Capitol Arson case.
The ruling paves the way for trial to begin Friday, September 26, 2025, at 10:00 AM at the Temple of Justice.
The decision comes after defense claims that confessions and other evidence were obtained through torture, sodomy, or coercive means, allegations vigorously rejected by the prosecution and now addressed in the court’s detailed ruling.
Defense Position: Torture, Coercion & Unlawful Evidence
The defense urged the court to exclude (suppress) key evidence, contending that it was obtained through illegal means, including:
Torture and sexual abuse (sodomy) during interrogations by State security operatives;
Unlawful search and seizure, including defects in the warrants used and chain-of-custody irregularities;
NSA overreach, arguing that the National Security Agency acted beyond its statutory mandate by performing criminal investigative functions;
Ill-treatment of defendants, raising questions under both the Liberian Constitution and international human rights law.
As part of their motion, the defense sought an independent medical examination, which the court granted and appointed the AMI Expeditionary Healthcare, led by Dr. Philip Zochonis Ireland to conduct the medical examination on the defendants.
The medical report reportedly documented:
Scar wounds consistent with prior trauma;
Indications of prolonged restraint and stress;
Psychological symptoms consistent with duress;
However, the medical team also acknowledged serious limitations:
The passage of time between alleged abuse and examination may have obscured or altered physical evidence;
Some defendants revoked consent for genital or anal examination, limiting what could be examined;
Diagnostic constraints in the local clinical setting meant that direct linkage between medical findings and torture could not always be definitively established.
The defense argued that these findings, though imperfect, raised sufficient doubt about voluntariness and compelled the exclusion of confessions or admissions derived from those interrogations.
Prosecution’s Response: Procedure Followed & Evidence Reliable
The prosecution countered with the position that all investigative steps, including arrests, interrogations, searches, and seizures, followed the law. Key points in the state’s argument included:
Voluntariness of statements:
The prosecution asserted that confessions and admissions were made freely, without coercion, and after rights were explained;
Presence of counsel: They emphasized that defense counsel were present at all times during interviews and that no objection was made contemporaneously;
Legitimacy of NSA involvement: The state defended the NSA’s role as necessary in complex investigations, arguing that it did not usurp prosecutorial power or violate due process;
Chain of custody and warrant validity:
The government asserted that search warrants were properly drafted and executed, and that custody of evidence (digital, physical) was maintained in accord with legal standards.
The prosecution contended that the medical report, while useful, did not in itself undermine the reliability or admissibility of the evidence.
Court’s Reasoning: Why Suppression Was Denied
In his ruling, Judge Willie recognized the seriousness of the torture allegations and commended the medical team’s efforts. But he concluded that the defense had not satisfied the legal standard for suppression.
Retraction or Denial by Defendants
The court placed weight on the fact that several defendants denied any sexual abuse during medical examination and revoked consent when asked for genital/anal examinations.
The judge viewed this as weakening the claims of torture related specifically to those parts of the body.
Admitted Limitations in Medical Report
Judge Willie acknowledged the doctor’s own statements that time lapses, diagnostic constraints, and limited consent posed substantial obstacles to certainty.
The court held that these inherent limitations meant the medical evidence could not reliably disprove alternative explanations.
Counsel Presence & Lack of Objection
Under Article 21(c) of the 1986 Constitution, every accused is entitled to counsel during interrogation, and any statements made without counsel are inadmissible.
The court found that defense counsel were present during interrogations and that no objection was raised at those times.
The judge reasoned that any rights violation should have been challenged contemporaneously.
Standards Under Criminal Procedure Law
Under Section 11.10 of Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law, motions to suppress may be granted when evidence is obtained by illegal searches or seizures (e.g. invalid warrants, lack of probable cause, improper execution).
The court held that the defense failed to meet that threshold: no clear defects were proven in warrants or execution, and there was no established proof that the evidence was “poisoned” beyond repair.
Supreme Court Precedents & Consistency with Legal Principles
The ruling cites the Supreme Court’s interpretation that inconsistent denials or avoidance of allegations may amount to general denial (e.g. Shaheen v Occidentale).
The court also referenced Sirleaf v Republic of Liberia and other jurisprudence endorsing the presumption of innocence and requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Respect for International Norms (But Not Determinative)
Though the court invoked Article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates humane treatment of detainees, the judge held that international obligations, while important, do not automatically displace domestic procedural rules unless the threshold for suppression is met.
Thus, the court concluded: “While we cannot definitely state that the account was conclusive … we do recognize and appreciate the effort made … However, we cannot fully rely on the information to suppress the evidence.” With that, the motion to suppress was denied and trial was ordered to proceed.
Reactions & Next Steps: Defense, Prosecution, Public Interest
Defense Reaction & Appeal Strategy
Defense counsel took exception to the ruling and signaled that they will pursue statutory remedies, including possibly an interlocutory appeal or writ of prohibition to the Supreme Court.
They will likely challenge the court’s factual findings (e.g. weight placed on revocations), legal standard applied to medical evidence, and argue that admission of coerced statements would violate Liberia’s constitutional guarantees (Articles 21(c) & 21(e), etc.
They may also lean heavily on international human rights instruments (ICCPR, Convention Against Torture) to underscore the gravity of torture allegations.
Prosecution Confidence & Trial Planning
The prosecution, emboldened by the ruling, will proceed with presenting evidence, including confessions, digital forensics, physical evidence, and witness testimony.
Its strategy will likely focus on undermining defense challenges about voluntariness, chain of custody, and expert credibility.
Public Scrutiny & Human Rights Watch
Given the high stakes and serious human rights questions, the trial will attract sustained scrutiny from civil society, human rights organizations, local media, and international observers. Key flashpoints will include:
How cross-examination addresses the contested confessions;
Whether alternative explanations or medical expert rebuttals are allowed;
Whether the trial court gives robust jury instructions about the reliability of evidence obtained under questionable circumstances; whether any further suppression motions or objections during trial will be preserved for appeal.
