09/04/2026
Monrovia City Court Denies Discovery Motion as Jewel Howard-Taylor Preliminary Hearing Continues
The Monrovia City Court has denied a defense request seeking to compel prosecutors to turn over evidence in the case involving former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor, clearing the way for the prosecution to continue presenting its case during the preliminary examination.
Howard-Taylor’s lawyers asked the court to order prosecutors to provide materials they intend to rely upon, arguing that access to the evidence is necessary to adequately prepare the defense.
Prosecutors opposed the motion, maintaining that the proceeding before the City Court is not a trial to determine guilt or innocence, but a preliminary examination to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to establish probable cause and send the matter to the Circuit Court.
The court subsequently denied the defense motion.
Top Police Investigator Takes the Stand
Following the ruling, prosecutors began presenting evidence and called Raphael Wilson, Commissioner of the Crime Services Division of the Liberia National Police, as the State’s first witness.
Wilson is expected to testify concerning the police investigation and evidence allegedly gathered in connection with the case.
What Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law Says
Under Section 12.2 of Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law, a defendant is entitled to a preliminary examination when requested.
Section 12.3 requires the magistrate to hear evidence and allows prosecution witnesses to be cross-examined in the presence of the defendant.
Importantly, the magistrate’s role at this stage is not to determine whether Howard-Taylor is guilty. The question is whether the prosecution establishes probable cause sufficient to require her to answer the charges before the Circuit Court.
If probable cause is established, the law provides that the accused should be held to answer before the Circuit Court. If it is not established, the defendant should be discharged.
But What About Discovery?
The defense request also raises Section 17.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which provides a mechanism through which a court may, upon motion, order the production of specified books, papers, documents or other materials and allow parties and their lawyers to examine and copy them.
However, the provision does not expressly establish an unlimited right to everything in the prosecution’s possession during a preliminary examination.
That distinction appears central to the dispute: the defense retains the right to hear and challenge the State’s evidence, including through cross-examination, but the City Court has declined to compel the broader pre-hearing disclosure sought by Howard-Taylor’s lawyers.
With the motion denied, attention now shifts to what evidence prosecutors actually present and whether it is sufficient to establish probable cause.
Howard-Taylor remains presumed innocent. A finding of probable cause at a preliminary examination, if ultimately made, would not amount to a conviction or finding of guilt; it would permit the prosecution to proceed to the appropriate trial court.
