MONROVIA: The Criminal Court ‘A’ at the Temple of Justice would be the scene of attraction today, Thursday, December 21, 2023 as Prosecution and Defense lawyers present final arguments in the landmark murder trial involving former Chief Justice, Gloria Musu Scott and three family members.
According to our reporter covering the case, Production of evidence, witnesses (human, material and documentary) by both the Prosecution and Defense concluded on Monday, December 18, 2023, meaning that the Prosecution and Defense Lawyers are not presenting in court anymore evidence or witnesses.
The court set today, Thursday, December 21, 2023, as the date for argument between the two parties (Prosecution and Defense), following which the judge would charge the jurors to go in their room and prepare their verdict.
As mandated by Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, the jurors, accompanied by the Sheriff of the court, under police escort, on Tuesday, December 19, 2023, went back to Cllr. Gloria Musu Scott’s Virginia residence to conclude their incomplete visit of last Saturday, December 16, 2023.
During Tuesday’s visit, the jurors finally entered Justice Scott’s house haven’t already viewed the exterior and interior parts of the compound last Saturday.
The jurors entered the house and took their observation notes, and as part of the judge’s mandate, only the jurors were permitted to be in the house.
No prosecution lawyers, no defense lawyers, and not even the Sheriff of the court was in the house with them. The Sheriff and one member of the family only ensured all doors were opened to allow the jurors easy access to wherever they wanted to look.
All is now set for argument on Thursday, December 21, 2023, after which the jurors would go to prepare their verdict.
Earlier on Monday, the Prosecution (government lawyers) brought back to the witness stand their pathologist, Dr. Benedict Kulee, this time as a rebuttal witness.
Dr. Kulee was rushed back to the court by the Prosecution after his autopsy on the body of Charloe Musu in April this year, was dismantled and declared scientifically inadequate by acclaimed American pathologist, Dr. Matthias Okoye.
The government lawyers hurriedly brought Dr. Kulee back to court to give rebuttal to Dr. Okoye’s findings and conclusions.
He was examined directly (by government lawyers), cross-examined (by defense lawyers) and also questioned by the judge himself before he was discharged.
Interestingly, according to legal minds, whenever an expert or a professional debunks or challenges the opinion of another professional, like in the case with Dr. Kulee and Dr. Okoye, it becomes a conflict of opinions and therefore, the rebuttal witness is normally an independent or different expert who did not have a previous opinion in the matter. But in this instance, the government brought back the same Dr. Benedict Kulee whose previous opinion (autopsy) was watered down, or for the lack of better word, condemned by Dr. Okoye, thus making his second testimony a repetition of what he had already expressed as the findings from his autopsy.