By Festus Poquie and E. J. Nathaniel Daygbor
Criminal Court “A” Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie on Tuesday allowed audio evidence the prosecution described as recovered from a defendant’s phone to be marked for the jury, ruling that the material could be admitted for the limited purpose of identification and hearing despite defense objections that it was hearsay, possibly AI-manipulated and lacked a proper chain of custody.
The ruling came as state prosecutors led by Solicitor General Augustine Fayiah and Montserrado County Attorney Richard Scott introduced recordings they say were extracted from the phone of co-defendant Eldred Thomas.
Chief criminal investigator Raphael Wilson identified the recordings in court and said they were obtained with alleged technical assistance from an agent of the National Security Agency, named in proceedings as Lewis Youjay Jayjay, and later turned over to the Liberia National Police and the Justice Ministry for prosecutorial use.
Defense teams including Cllrs. M. Wilkins Wright, Jonathan Massaquoi and Arthur Johnson, vigorously objected. They argued the audio was hearsay, that the prosecution had failed to authenticate the files, that the evidence lacked an unbroken chain of custody, and that the recordings could have been produced, altered or “doctored” using artificial intelligence.
Defense counsel also said the same recordings — or similar material — had been used earlier in a magisterial court proceeding and raised inconsistencies in the physical evidence the state has presented.
Prosecution presented physical exhibits that defense lawyers said were inconsistent with earlier descriptions. Cllr. Johnson noted the state initially described an alleged arson instrument as a three-inch matchbox in the magisterial court.
In the current trial prosecutors produced a much smaller matchbox of less than an inch. The container said to have carried gasoline was described earlier as a mayonnaise jar but was presented this week as a Clorox bottle, defense counsel said.
Who may play the recording and who may testify about how it was extracted also became a point of contention. The prosecution’s witness who identified the audio in court was not the technician or witness who earlier extracted the data.
Defense counsel insisted the person who did the extraction must appear and demonstrate the method and integrity of the extraction before the clips could be admitted. Defense also warned that involving an NSA agent without clear legal authority or presidential authorization would raise serious admissibility and legality questions.
Judge Willie acknowledged defense concerns, telling the courtroom that the audio is hearsay but that he would admit it for a limited purpose: identification at the hearing and for the jury’s consideration of what was presented, not as a ruling on the material’s ultimate authenticity or originality.
When the prosecution began to move from identification toward establishing authenticity, the defense renewed its objections, citing the witness’s lack of expertise in voice analysis and the absence of an expert transcript or certification.
Judge Willie overruled those objections and ordered the material marked for possible jury use, saying that, under Supreme Court guidance, once evidence has been identified it may be marked and presented for the jury’s determination.
The audio excerpts played in open court include voices the prosecution says are defendants discussing plans on Nov. 10, 2024, to attack the homes of lawmakers opposed to then-Speaker Koffa and conversations about preparing building renovations.
The prosecution says the communications are relevant to the events that culminated in a fire at the Capitol roughly a week later. Defense counsel said the audio does not demonstrate direct responsibility for the Capitol fire and again pressed that the recordings could have been produced or altered by AI.
Legal context: hearsay, authentication, digital and AI-generated material
- Liberian courts generally follow common-law principles that treat hearsay — an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted — as presumptively inadmissible unless it falls within a recognized exception or the court exercises discretion to admit it for a limited purpose. As in other jurisdictions, the trial judge has broad authority to determine admissibility and may admit hearsay for limited purposes (for example, for corroboration or identification) while instructing the jury on the limited weight it should give that material.
Key legal issues courts consider when ruling on audio or other digital evidence include:
- Authentication: The prosecution must normally show that a recording is what it is claimed to be. That requires testimony or other evidence about how the recording was made, preserved and transferred, and often expert analysis of metadata or forensic footprints.
- Chain of custody: Courts expect a clear, documented trail from the original source (the device or server) to the evidence tendered in court. Gaps in that chain can justify exclusion or a limiting instruction.
- Best evidence principle: If the contents of a recording are material, courts typically prefer the original recording or, if unavailable, an acceptable substitute accompanied by a satisfactory explanation. Where only a copy or derivative is available, the party offering it must account for the absence of the original.
- Digital and AI concerns: With the proliferation of AI tools that can generate or alter audio, courts increasingly require more rigorous authentication — including expert forensic testimony, verification of source and techniques, and preservation of originals — before admitting recordings as substantive proof.
- Illegality in collection: If evidence was obtained in a manner that violated constitutional protections or statutory rules (for example, without proper authorization or via unlawful search), courts may exclude it or consider remedies under the exclusionary rule.
How evidence can be admitted or denied
Under these principles, a Liberian trial court may exclude evidence if the prosecution cannot authenticate it, cannot account for gaps in the chain of custody, or if the court finds collection was unlawful or severely prejudicial. Conversely, a judge may admit disputed material under a limiting approach — allowing the jury to hear it but instructing jurors about its limited purpose and telling them to weigh reliability and authenticity in light of competing testimony.
In this trial, Judge Willie’s ruling reflects that approach: the court allowed the recordings to be marked and played but framed the admission as limited and not a definitive finding that the recordings are authentic or untampered.
That procedural posture leaves key questions — who extracted the recordings, whether originals and metadata can be produced, and whether any AI-generated manipulation occurred — subject to further proof and cross-examination.
What’s next
The case, which names former House Speaker Fonati Koffa, Representatives Dixon Seboe and Abu Kamara and several co-defendants continue Wednesday, Dec. 10, at the Temple of Justice. Defense lawyers said they will press further challenges to the audio’s authenticity, the chain of custody and the circumstances of its extraction.
They may seek to call forensic experts to test the recordings although they insist the broaden rest with the state.
Prosecutors will likely try to authenticate the evidence through additional witnesses or expert analysis and to rebut assertions that the material was altered.
