By Frank P. Martin
MONROVIA: Lawyers representing Peter Bon Jallah have filed a motion seeking a judgment of acquittal, arguing that inconsistencies surrounding the alleged crime scenes, exhibits and circumstances of the DNA findings, have created reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.
The motion was filed Monday, September 28, during the 42nd day of jury sitting in Criminal Court “E” at the Temple of Justice, following testimony from a Rwandan forensic expert that DNA profiles recovered from a white T-shirt, black T-shirt, shorts and boxer matched Bon Jallah’s reference DNA profile.
The defense, however, is challenging the significance of the forensic findings, arguing that a DNA match alone does not establish when, how or under what circumstances the biological material was deposited on the exhibits.
Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh, Sr. has given the prosecution until Tuesday, September 29, at 12:00 noon to file a written resistance to the defense motion.
Judge Wesseh subsequently suspended the trial, pending a ruling on the motion.
If the motion is granted, Bon Jallah would receive a judgment of acquittal at trial. If it is denied, the proceedings could continue, including the defendant’s opportunity to present evidence in his defense.
The Republic also has a statutory right to appeal an order granting a motion for judgment of acquittal.
The defense is not disputing that the Rwandan forensic laboratory identified Bon Jallah’s DNA profile on four exhibits.
Instead, the counsel is challenging what the scientific evidence establishes in relation to the alleged offenses.
Pascal Bavugirije, Acting Division Manager of the Biology Division at Rwanda’s Forensic Institute, testified that laboratory analysis found DNA profiles consistent with Bon Jallah on the white T-shirt, black T-shirt, shorts and boxer submitted for examination.
A forensic report, dated January 22, concluded that the DNA profiles obtained from the four exhibits matched Bon Jallah’s reference profile and that he could not be excluded as a contributor.
The findings, therefore establish a biological association between Bon Jallah and the four tested exhibits.
However, Bavugirije also testified about a limitation of DNA analysis: the laboratory could not determine when the biological material was deposited, how it was deposited or the circumstances under which it came to be present on the exhibits.
The laboratory’s assignment was to examine materials submitted by Liberian investigators and compare the resulting DNA profiles with reference samples.
It was not tasked with reconstructing the alleged events or determining how the biological material came to be deposited.
The forensic evidence also included a mixed DNA profile that did not match either Bon Jallah or the alleged victim.
According to the forensic report, a tissue or toilet-paper sample reportedly collected from the alleged crime scene produced a mixed DNA profile that did not correspond with the reference profiles of either Bon Jallah or the alleged victim.
Bavugirije told the court that the unidentified DNA could potentially be compared with reference samples from other individuals if such persons are identified and their samples obtained.
The evidence, therefore presents two distinct forensic findings: DNA matching Bon Jallah on four exhibits and a mixed DNA profile from the tissue or toilet paper that remains unidentified.
For the prosecution, the four matching exhibits provide biological evidence connecting Bon Jallah to the materials examined by the laboratory.
For the defense, however, the expert’s inability to determine the timing or circumstances of the DNA deposition limits what can be concluded from the matches.
The defense has also placed significant emphasis on the prosecution’s inability to establish the Camp Johnson Road location described in testimony by the alleged victim.
According to Monday’s court proceedings, two locations had initially been scheduled for a judicial inspection on September 24.
One was a residence associated with Bon Jallah, while the other was the alleged Camp Johnson Road location where the alleged victim testified that one of the incidents occurred.
The defense told the court that Linsay Gould, identified during the trial as Chief Investigator of the Women and Children Protection Services, testified that investigators took the alleged victim to Camp Johnson Road on two occasions, but she was unable to identify the precise location.
Based on that testimony, the defense is asking the court to strike portions of the alleged victim’s earlier testimony concerning the Camp Johnson Road location.
Defense counsel argued that the inability to identify the alleged crime scene creates reasonable doubt.
The prosecution has not yet filed its written response to that argument.
The September 24 inspection of Bon Jallah’s residence has also become part of the defense’s argument.
According to the court record, representatives of both parties and their lawyers visited one of Bon Jallah’s residences in the Airfield-Matadi area.
During the inspection, only one room was opened, while another remained closed.
The family reportedly identified one of the rooms as the master bedroom but declined to open the other room when requested by the prosecution.
Defense counsel, Cllr. Wilfred Sayeh reportedly argued that testimony before the court had identified the master bedroom as one of the locations where an alleged incident occurred.
The defense maintains that the physical inspection did not resolve competing descriptions concerning the residence.
Counsel has also pointed to an alleged discrepancy between the police charge sheet and testimony attributed to the alleged victim regarding which room inside Bon Jallah’s residence was involved.
Those issues are now before Judge Wesseh for determination.
During Monday’s sitting, defense counsel formally asked the court to enter a judgment of acquittal before Bon Jallah presents a defense. Counsel relied principally on Sections 2.1 and 20.10 of Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law.
Section 2.1 provides for the presumption of innocence and states that where reasonable doubt exists as to whether guilt has been satisfactorily established, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.
Section 20.10 provides for a judgment of acquittal where, after the evidence on either side is closed, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The defense argued that the prosecution’s evidence has revealed sufficient inconsistencies to justify terminating the case.
The prosecution, however, has not yet responded substantively to those arguments.
Prosecutors requested additional time to file a written resistance, informing the court that the defense had raised several issues requiring a detailed response.
Judge Wesseh granted the request but directed prosecutors to file their resistance by noon Tuesday.
Monday’s development does not constitute a finding by the court that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient, neither has Judge Wesseh ruled that the DNA evidence is incapable of supporting the prosecution’s case.
The immediate question before the court is whether the evidence presented by the Republic is legally sufficient for the case to continue.
The distinction is significant. The Rwandan forensic evidence establishes a DNA profile match between Bon Jallah and four exhibits. However, the forensic expert did not establish the precise time or circumstances in which the biological material was deposited.
Those limitations will now be considered alongside the testimony of the alleged victim, the identification and ownership of the exhibits, the circumstances under which they were collected, the chain of custody and other evidence presented by the prosecution.
The defense is asking the court to treat the unresolved issues as reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s written resistance is expected to address why, in its view, those issues do not warrant terminating the case at this stage.
Judge Wesseh has suspended the trial pending a ruling on the motion.
If the motion is denied, the case can proceed, and Bon Jallah will retain his right to present evidence in his defense. If the motion is granted, the defendant would receive a judgment of acquittal.
Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law also provides the Republic a right of appeal from an order granting a defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Section 24.3 provides that the Republic may appeal as of right from an order granting a motion for judgment of acquittal.
Under Section 24.8, an appeal from a judgment, sentence or qualifying order is taken by oral announcement in open court at the time the judgment or order is rendered.
Towards Economic Empowerment And Reconciliation
