A writ of certiorari filed by the defense in the high-profile Capitol arson case has brought to light several alleged contradictions and legal misinterpretations in a recent ruling by Criminal Court “A” Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie.
At the heart of the challenge is Judge Willie’s denial of a motion to suppress key pieces of evidence-evidence the defense claims was unlawfully obtained.
Central to the defense’s argument is the judge’s justification for the involvement of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the investigation.
Judge Willie held that the NSA was authorized to provide “technical assistance” to the Liberia National Police (LNP), as both entities fall under the Ministry of Justice, which may lawfully coordinate support between national security agencies.
But the defense contests that the NSA’s involvement far exceeded any reasonable definition of “technical assistance.”
According to court filings, the NSA detained and interrogated suspects Thomas Isaac Etheridge and Eric Susay for eight consecutive days at its headquarters, without providing them access to legal counsel.
Defense lawyers argue that interrogations are a law enforcement function, not a form of technical support, and thus fall outside the NSA’s lawful purview.
The defense team questioned: “How can it be called technical assistance when suspects were interrogated for eight days?” one defense attorney asked. “That is the job of the police, not an intelligence agency.”
Torture Allegations and Medical Reports
Another critical point raised in the certiorari petition involves the court’s handling of medical evidence.
Judge Willie dismissed medical reports documenting signs of torture against six defendants.
He referenced a cover letter from the examining doctor, which noted the time lapse since the alleged abuse, and statements from some defendants who denied being sodomized.
However, the defense asserts that the judge overlooked the substantive content of the individual medical evaluations.
These reports included photographic documentation and forensic findings indicating that at least four of the six defendants had injuries “highly consistent with allegations of torture.”
The defense says these were presented without disclaimers or ambiguity, and that the judge selectively relied on outlier comments to justify dismissing the reports.
“The judge focused on the cover letter and a few inconsistent statements, while ignoring clear forensic evidence,” said one legal team member. “This is not a minor oversight-it’s a miscarriage of justice.”
Additionally, the court reasoned that the defendants could not have been tortured because they had legal representation “at all times.”
But the defense has categorically rejected this claim, noting that during the eight days of NSA detention, neither the lawyers nor the families were informed of the suspects’ whereabouts or granted access to them.
“The assumption that legal counsel was present or had access is not supported by anything in the record,” a defense lawyer stated.
Court documents further reveal that legal counsel only became aware of the NSA’s role after the fact; an omission the defense argues constitutes a serious violation of due process and the constitutional rights of the accused.
Questionable Search Authorization
The certiorari also disputes the classification of a December 18, 2024 letter from a magistrate as a valid search warrant.
The defense argues that the letter lacked the legal attributes required of a search warrant, and that this is evidenced by the prosecution’s subsequent request for a formal search warrant on January 9, 2025, weeks after phone data had already been extracted.
“If the December 18 letter truly served as a valid search warrant, there would have been no need to obtain another one,” said a defense attorney. “Judge Willie’s classification of it as such is contrary to law.”
Misapplication of Legal Standards
In his ruling, Judge Willie stated that if torture occurred, the defendants would have legal remedies available, but only if they can identify the individuals responsible, who would also be entitled to due process.
The defense has sharply criticized this reasoning, arguing that it misunderstands the purpose of a motion to suppress, which is governed by rules of evidence, not civil liability for torture.
“The motion to suppress evidence is not about punishing the torturer, it’s about ensuring that unlawfully obtained evidence is excluded from trial,” explained a legal expert observing the case.
Judge Willie further ruled that because the defendants allegedly denied sexual assault during their medical examinations and withdrew consent, no anal or genital examinations were performed, and therefore there is no proven link between the injuries and the alleged abuse.
He cited precedent (Shaheen v. Occidentale, 13 LLR 278) to argue that inconsistent statements by the defendants undermined their credibility.
Nonetheless, the judge acknowledged the state’s duty under Article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to treat detainees humanely, yet concluded that the jury should determine the credibility of the evidence, effectively punting the matter to trial.
Ruling and Legal Fallout
On Wednesday, September 24, 2025, in open court during the 38th Day Jury Sitting of the August Term, Judge Willie formally denied the motion to suppress evidence.
He ruled that the issues raised by the defense, though serious-did not meet the threshold for excluding evidence and that the matter should be submitted to the trial jury.
“The evidence should be passed onto the trial jurors, who are the triers of fact,” the judge stated.
The defense immediately noted their exception to the ruling, preserving the issue for appeal.
A full trial was scheduled for Friday, September 26, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. but the Supreme Court Chambers Justice Jamestta H. Wolokolie issued a temporary stay order on all proceedings until the outcome of the scheduled conference with judge and both parties.
Legal pundits following the case have expressed concern that Judge Willie’s ruling may have relied more on procedural assumptions than factual analysis, which they argue could erode public confidence in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court is expected to review the certiorari petition in the coming weeks.
Its decision could have far-reaching implications, particularly in clarifying the role of national security agencies in criminal investigations and safeguarding the rights of accused persons under both Liberian law and international human rights treaties.
