….As Criminal Court A’ Upholds Magistrate Ruling
By: G Bennie Bravo Johnson I
In the case involving Republic of Liberia v. Thomas Isaac Etheridge and Eric Susay, which is premised on serious criminal charges, including arson, criminal mischief, conspiracy, and attempted murder – all linked to the Capitol Building fire, Criminal Court “A” Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie has upheld the decision of Monrovia City Court Stipendiary Magistrate Ben L. Barco to denied the petitioners prayer for a motion to suppress evidence and return personal property.
“Therefore, the Magistrate’s decision is affirmed and confirmed.”
As a result of this ruling, the evidence in question remains admissible in the case.
The petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the defendants, had sought to overturn the Magistrate’s ruling that denied their motion to suppress evidence and return personal property.
The petitioners contended that evidence obtained from co-defendant Thomas Isaac Etheridge’s phone was unlawfully collected due to procedural errors.
Specifically, they argued that the search and seizure warrant was issued 23 days after Etheridge’s arrest, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
Additionally, they claimed that their client had not been represented by legal counsel during the investigation, thus violating his rights.
On the other hand, the prosecution, led by Cllr. Richard J. Scott, Sr., refuted the petitioners’ claims, asserting that Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi had been legally appointed as defense counsel and had signed documents confirming his representation of the defendants.
The prosecution further emphasized that the petitioners had failed to object to the evidence during the preliminary examination and had only raised the motion to suppress during the final arguments.
In reviewing the petitioners’ request to reverse the Magistrate’s decision, Judge Willie found that the ruling was sound.
The court agreed with Magistrate Barco’s reasoning that the petitioners had waived their right to challenge the evidence by waiting until the conclusion of the preliminary examination to file their motion.
“The Defendant/Petitioner sat supinely when the evidence was being produced and marked… and did not object until the final arguments were made,” the court stated in its ruling.
