TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia – The Monrovia City Court has denied a motion filed by the defense in the alleged Capitol Building arson case, rejecting their request to suppress evidence and return property seized during the investigation.
By: Jackie Dennis, contributing writer
The case involves defendants Thomas Isaac Etheridge and Eric Susay, who are accused of arson. During legal proceedings, their lawyers argued that evidence obtained on December 18, 2024, should be suppressed and that the seized property should be returned.
During court proceeding a “motion to suppress” can be filed, requesting a judge to rule that certain evidence cannot be presented at trial, typically because it was obtained illegally or violates the defendant’s constitutional rights, effectively preventing the prosecution from using that evidence against the accused.
However, state prosecutors opposed the motion, asserting that the evidence had already been admitted in court and that the defense had ample time to challenge it prior to its admission.
Following arguments from both sides, the court ruled in favor of the prosecution and denied the defense’s motion, allowing the case to proceed.
During the hearing, state prosecutors argued that a crime had been committed and that the evidence strongly implicated the defendants. They presented multiple forms of evidence, including direct testimony, WhatsApp messages, and voice recordings, asserting that these materials demonstrated the defendants’ involvement.
The defense, however, called for the charges to be dismissed, challenging the legality and reliability of the state’s evidence. They argued that the prosecution failed to present a fire report to substantiate the arson charge. Additionally, they claimed that the voice recordings played in court were generated using artificial intelligence by Lewis Jayjay, an employee of the National Security Agency (NSA), and were obtained unlawfully.
Further contesting the prosecution’s case, the defense pointed out that the weapon allegedly taken from a Liberia National Police officer was not presented as evidence. They also argued that the state did not specify the degree of the fire—whether first, second, or third degree—thus failing to meet legal standards. Additionally, they noted that while a voice recording mentioned harm to two police officers, the prosecution did not present any relatives of the alleged victims to testify.
Despite these arguments, the court upheld the prosecution’s evidence and ruled that the case should move forward.
