Criminal Court A Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie

MONROVIA — Criminal Court “A,” presided over by Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, has declared a mistrial in a high-profile criminal proceeding and ordered that the case be retried, citing what the court described as a “manifest necessity” arising from an emergency situation during the trial.

In a ruling issued under the court’s seal on Thursday, Judge Willie ordered the immediate disbandment and dismissal of the entire jury panel, thereby terminating the proceedings without a verdict. The court held that the circumstances leading to the interruption of the trial were urgent and unavoidable, and as such do not preclude the defendants from being retried under the law.

The accused in the Capitol Building arson case leaving court on Tuesday, September 24, after court ruled against suppressing some of the pieces of evidence gathered against them in Capitol Building arson case

“Undeniably, manifest necessity exists in this matter,” Judge Willie ruled, emphasizing that the defendants may lawfully be subjected to a new trial. He concluded that the case must “start anew,” in order to ensure fairness and the proper administration of justice.

The order, dated January 2, 2026, was formally issued and signed by Judge Willie in his capacity as Resident Circuit Judge.

Defense Objects, Signals Possible Legal Action

Following the court’s decision, defense counsel strongly objected to the declaration of a mistrial and the dismissal of the jury. The defense formally noted its exception on the record and informed the court of its intention to “take advantage of the statute being provided,” signaling a possible legal challenge or further procedural action in response to the ruling.

The Capitol Building was set ablazed on December 18, 2024

Defense Seeks Bail Pending Retrial

In the wake of the mistrial, defense counsel also filed a motion requesting that the defendants be admitted to bail while awaiting a new trial. The defense argued that continued detention would be unjust, particularly given that the retrial is not expected to take place until the February Term of Court or later.

In support of the bail application, counsel advanced several arguments, including:

  • The abrupt termination of the trial will result in a substantial delay before retrial;
  • The defendants already have a valid Criminal Appearance Bond on file, which has not been revoked;
  • The defendants previously produced human sureties who were examined by the court and whose residences were verified by court officers; and
  • The prosecution has already presented its evidence, thereby reducing concerns regarding flight risk or interference with the judicial process.

The court has not yet ruled on the bail application. The case is expected to resume once a new jury is empaneled and a fresh trial date is announced, as the proceedings begin anew in accordance with the court’s order.