Liberia: Bon Jallah Seeks Acquittal As DNA Evidence Links Him to Four Exhibits, Defense Points to Crime-Scene Dispute

Prosecution Given Until Tuesday to Resist Motion as Criminal Court “E” Suspends Trial; Rwandan Forensic Expert Says DNA Match Cannot Establish When or How Biological Material Was Deposited

MONROVIA — Lawyers representing Peter Bon Jallah have asked Criminal Court “E” to acquit their client, arguing that inconsistencies surrounding the alleged crime scenes and the circumstances of DNA evidence presented at trial raise reasonable doubt.

The motion was filed Monday, September 28, during the 42nd day of jury sitting at the Temple of Justice, following testimony from a Rwandan forensic expert that Bon Jallah’s DNA profile matched biological material found on four exhibits.

Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh, Sr. gave the prosecution until noon Tuesday, September 29, to file a written resistance and suspended the trial pending a ruling on the motion.

The defense does not dispute the DNA match. Instead, it challenges what the scientific evidence establishes about the alleged offenses.

DNA Match Does Not Establish When or How Material Was Deposited

Pascal Bavugirije, Acting Division Manager of the Biology Division at Rwanda’s Forensic Institute, testified that DNA profiles obtained from a white T-shirt, black T-shirt, shorts and boxer matched Bon Jallah’s reference DNA profile.

A forensic report dated January 22 concluded that Bon Jallah could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA profiles obtained from the four exhibits.

However, Bavugirije told the court that 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 clothing.

The laboratory’s role, he explained, 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.

The forensic evidence also included a mixed DNA profile obtained from tissue or toilet paper reportedly collected from a crime scene. According to the report, that profile did not match the reference samples of either Bon Jallah or the alleged victim.

Bavugirije said the unidentified profile could potentially be compared with samples from other individuals if such persons were identified and reference samples obtained.

Defense Challenges Camp Johnson Road Crime Scene

The defense has also challenged the prosecution’s evidence concerning the alleged Camp Johnson Road location.

Two locations had been scheduled for a judicial inspection on September 24: a residence associated with Bon Jallah and the Camp Johnson Road location where the alleged victim testified that one of the incidents occurred.

The Camp Johnson Road site was not visited.

The defense cited testimony from Linsay Gould, identified during the trial as chief investigator of the Women and Children Protection Services, that investigators took the alleged victim to Camp Johnson Road on two occasions but that she was unable to identify the precise location.

Defense lawyers argue that the inability to identify the alleged crime scene undermines that portion of the testimony and contributes to reasonable doubt.

Dispute Over Inspection of Bon Jallah’s Residence

The inspection of Bon Jallah’s residence in the Airfield-Matadi area also became part of the defense’s argument.

According to the court record, representatives of both sides and their lawyers visited the residence on September 24. One room was opened while another remained closed after the family identified one room as the master bedroom and declined to open the other.

Defense counsel Cllr. Wilfred Sayeh argued that testimony before the court had identified the master bedroom as one of the locations where an alleged incident occurred, while the defense maintains that the inspection did not resolve discrepancies concerning the residence.

The defense has further pointed to an alleged difference between the police charge sheet and the alleged victim’s testimony regarding which room was involved.

The prosecution is expected to address those issues in its resistance.

Defense Invokes Criminal Procedure Law

In seeking an acquittal before Bon Jallah presents a defense, lawyers 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 requires acquittal where reasonable doubt remains as to whether guilt has been established.

Section 20.10 provides for judgment of acquittal where the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Defense lawyers argued that the prosecution’s evidence has exposed inconsistencies sufficient to justify ending the case at this stage.

Prosecutors requested additional time to respond, saying the defense had raised several issues requiring a detailed answer. Judge Wesseh granted the request but ordered the written resistance filed by noon Tuesday.

Court to Decide Whether Case Continues

The filing of the motion does not constitute a ruling that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient. The court must now determine whether the evidence presented by the Republic is legally sufficient for the trial to continue.

If the motion is denied, Bon Jallah will retain his right to present evidence in his defense.

If the motion is granted, he would receive a judgment of acquittal. Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law provides the Republic a right to appeal an order granting a motion for judgment of acquittal.

For now, the immediate issue before Judge Wesseh is whether the prosecution’s evidence—including the DNA match on four exhibits and testimony surrounding the alleged crime scenes—is sufficient to allow the case to proceed.

The court’s ruling following Tuesday’s resistance will determine the next stage of the proceedings.