Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading...
" /> Voice Out Digital “Kumba Claims Self-Defense” PW9 Testifies In Cross-Examination | Voice Out Digital
Published On: Tue, Dec 5th, 2023

“Kumba Claims Self-Defense” PW9 Testifies In Cross-Examination

Momodou Touray (PW9),Chief Inspector at the Special Crime Unit in Bakau during his cross examination in State Vs. Kumba Sinyan, when asked by Defense Lawyer Sagarr on whether he (PW9) questioned the accused about self-defense he (PW9) testified that the accused (Kumba Sinyan)  mentioned self-defense but did not provide further details. Defense Lawyer Sagarr inquired if the investigation delved deeper into what she meant by self-defense, to which Touray replied that she had only mentioned cutting a wound on her hand but said she cut the stomach of Lama with a razor blade.    


Defense Lawyer Sagarr then asked if Momodou Touray (PW9) knew if the accused (Kumba Sinyan) had been taken to the hospital for further examination but he (PW9) responded negatively. Defense Lawyer Sagarr then put to the witness that the accused (Kumba Sinyan) had a cut on her hand, but Momodou Touray (PW9) clarified that it was a small cut and confirmed that she had shown it to him. When asked if further examination was conducted on her injuries, Momodou Touray (PW9) stated that he did not examine her further, because Kumba only discussed the wound on her hand.

Defense Lawyer Sagarr then asked Momodou Touray (PW9) if they had taken the accused (Kumba Sinyan) to the hospital for an examination, to which he replied that they had not. Defense Lawyer Sagarr questioned Momodou Touray (PW9) about his familiarity with taking statements and how he supervised the process to which he (PW9) confirmed his familiarity and expressed satisfaction with his supervision.

When asked if the accused’s lawyer was present during the statement-taking, Momodou Touray (PW9) mentioned that the family and a lawyer were present. Defense Lawyer Sagarr asked (PW9) whether a lawyer was present but Kumba’s lawyer, the witness negatively.

Defense lawyer Sagarr emphasized the importance of a lawyer being present as a constitutional right, to which Momodou Touray (PW9) acknowledged. Sagarr then inquired if an independent witness was provided during the statement-taking, to which Momodou Touray (PW9) answered affirmatively. However, he clarified that it was not him who provided the witness, but rather there was an independent witness present.

Defense lawyer Sagarr raised a question about the timing of the independent witness, suggesting that they were brought up after the statement was taken to which (PW9) disagreed, stating that it occurred before.

The defense then claimed that the accused was not cautioned properly, but (PW9) insisted that she was. Sagarr challenged Momodou Touray’s knowledge about the legal distinction between killings and murder saying not all killing implies murder, to which (PW9) admitted he did not know. Sagarr told Momodou Touray (PW9), that (PW7) didn’t testify that Kumba confessed to the killing, Momodou Touray (PW9) pointed out that he is (PW9) and not (PW7).

Defense Lawyer Sagarr argued that the accused’s confession of self-defense does not necessarily imply murder in the particular circumstance but the judge intervened, indicating that it would be up to the court to determine.

Defense Lawyer Sagarr then asked Momodou Touray (PW9) to review a document referred to as Exhibit G and determine its content. However, the state counsel objected, stating that Momodou Touray (PW9) previously stated he did not make the statement, so he should not be questioned about it. Defense lawyer Sagarr clarified that he was challenging the claim of the confession being present in the voluntary statement. Momodou Touray (PW9) stated that he did not know but reiterated that the accused confessed to killing her boyfriend with a razor blade.

The defense further questioned Touray about whether he took pictures of the victim, to which he confirmed that he did. However, he stated that the pictures were with the crime scene officer. Sagarr asked Touray if he was familiar with the case, to which Touray replied affirmatively.

When asked when the case file was transferred to him, Touray mentioned that it was on September 14, 2022. Sagarr inquired about Touray’s visit to the crime scene, to which he confirmed that he had visited on the same day in the morning.

Defense lawyer Sagarr asked if Touray was present when the accused person was visited at her house, to which Touray replied affirmatively. However, when asked if he was present during the first visit to the crime scene for evidence collection, Touray stated that he was not there. Defense lawyer Sagarr questioned whether Touray attended the evidence collection, to which he responded negatively.

At this point, Counsel Sagarr stated that she had no further questions for Touray, and the witness was discharged. The state counsel promised to call the last state witness and the case was adjourned to Wednesday at 13:00.

About the Author

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

unemployment tax management