METHODOLOGY: RESEARCH METHODS

©Journal of Contemporary Security and Safety Studies 2019

91

analyzed, found to be human blood, and to have a set of blood groups possessed by 10 percent of the total population. If a suspect has all those same blood groups, it means only that the blood may have come from the suspect.

(vii) Reporting Results and Expert Testimony Most scientists communicate their results and interpretations to colleagues who, among other things, are familiar with the terminology, methods, and approaches that are commonly used in the investigations of such problems and with the state of knowledge in a field. Forensic scientists, however, must communicate their findings to police officers, attorneys, judges, and members of the public who sit on juries. This task often requires that highly technical and complex information be distilled and translated into an understandable set of facts and conclusions. Specialized and technical terminology should be avoided insofar as possible if results and conclusions are to be made clear. Every effort should be made to express the findings in a way that nonspecialists can understand. The simplest possible language in reports and in testimony before the courts tends to be the most informative.

Expert witnesses are given somewhat more latitude in courts of law than other witnesses. It is a general rule of evidence that a witness can testify only to facts known to him or her. Ordinary witnesses may testify to their opinions based on observations of facts, but these impressions have to be amenable to judgment against a background of ordinary experience. Thus, a witness might testify to a person's identity, to the color of an object, or to the distance between two objects. An expert witness, on the other hand, is employed because the issues require analysis and explanation by a person with scientific or specialized knowledge or experience. A qualified expert, who has been demonstrated to the court to have skill, knowledge, or experience beyond that of a lay person, may give an opinion to the court which is relevant to the analyses conducted and to the facts of the case.

Over the years, courts have developed criteria for the admissibility of scientific tests, procedures, and their results. The landmark case in this area is Frye v.

United States, which took place in 1923. In Frye, the court said:

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define.

Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be

sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Subsequent decisions have made it clear that general recognition is no longer required as a test of admissibility. In other words, every scientist in the field or specialty does not have to know about a test or be familiar with it in order for it to be recognized. The definition of "the particular field in which it belongs" has been narrowed, too, and is now taken to mean the appropriate specialty or subspecialty within a field of science. On some occasions, the results of experimental procedures, designed to meet the requirements of a particular problem, have been admitted (as in Coppolino v. State of Florida, 1968). Such procedures must be based on accepted ana-lytical principles, however, and a proper foundation must be set down for them.

Expert witnesses should remember that they are talking to the jury. Every effort must be made to help the jury understand the physical-evidence analysis and the conclusions which can be drawn from it in terms of the case. Experts can be drawn into complex technical discussions in court, but even under these circumstances, one should take the time to try to explain the answers fully to the jury.

8.00 RELEVANCE OF LAW TO FORENSIC

92

©Journal of Contemporary Security and Safety Studies 2019 who engage in the forbidden activities. The

activities involving relationships among people are also subject to certain rules. In a general way, criminal codes govern activities in which society as a whole has an interest, and civil codes tend to govern relations between individuals or groups. The distinction between criminal and civil matters depends on the social and historical context of the society which created the laws.

Legal structures are always reflections of partic-ular societies at particpartic-ular times. Without exception, however, the dynamics of their operation represent a human activity that depends on decision making. Legal decision making is nearly always vested in some kind of court or tribunal.

Codes and legal systems cannot anticipate every possible circumstance under which disputes will arise between people or with the state. The function of the courts or tribunals, therefore, is to make reasoned judgments in particular cases. They try to apply the general principles of the legal code to the particular circumstances of a given situation. To exercise their function responsibly, courts have always sought ways to ascertain the facts surrounding particular cases. The relationship between law and science had developed out of a common interest in factual information. Although the concepts of scientific fact and legal fact are often quite different, the application of scientific methods can often provide factual information that is relevant to a legal proceeding and would not be available without the intervention of science.

Forensic science comes to public attention most often as a result of involvement in major criminal cases.

There are more organized forensic science laboratories formally associated with the criminal justice system than there are associated strictly with civil work. The same general methods, approaches, and procedures are used by forensic scientists, however, regardless of whether the case is civil or criminal in nature. From a scientific point of view, the distinction between civil and criminal is artificial-the distinction is a legal one. In this book, we will make a number of references to criminal cases, but it should be kept in mind that the principles, methods, and procedures discussed are equally applicable to any case, whether civil or criminal. (Kuzmack, N. T. 1982) Civil cases usually involve disputes between individuals or organizations, and they can encompass a variety of situations in which physical evidence can play an important role. Questions concerning the authenticity of a last will and testament, for example, might be referred to a questioned document examiner for resolution. The larger the estate involved, the more complicated the legal proceedings are likely to become. The recent dispute over the several "wills"

of the late Howard Hughes represents a spectacular example of this kind of case. In cases involving apparent mechanical or materials failures, various experts may be called upon to look at items of evidence. People who have suffered bodily harm, or the families of people who have been killed, as the apparent result of mechanical or materials defects or failures sometimes sue manufacturers for damages. Tire-failure cases would be an example. In such a case, the plaintiffs must try to establish negligence on the part of the tire manufacturer (defendant), and examination of the failed materials can provide important evidence. Forensic serologists get involved in matrimonial disputes at times. In contested divorce proceedings, one party may engage the services of a private investigator to try to show that the other party has been sexually involved with another person. In these cases, evidence can be submitted to a serologist for semen identification, and sometimes for blood-group determination. Blood typing in cases of disputed paternity is commonly used in family court cases where a man is sued for the support of a child whose fatherhood he disclaims.

There are many other examples of criminalistics and forensic science involvement in civil cases.

In any type of case, the principles and procedures of the forensic science investigation remain the same.

Recognition of physical evidence, its proper preservation, and analysis can often provide important information to courts and to juries in helping them resolve the complexities of cases.

9 . 0 0 C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E

A D M I N I S T R A T I O N : P r o b l e m s a n d C h a l l e n g e s

A trial in Criminal Justice Administration in Nigeria starts when an accused person is brought before a court of competent jurisdiction and his plea is taken. It starts with the Registrar reading out the charge against him in the language that he understands. He is then required to make a plea either guilty or not guilty to the charge for which he is being arraigned. If he pleads guilty to the charge, he is convicted and appropriately sentenced. Sentencing concludes the trial. If on the other hand, he pleads not guilty as charged, the prosecution is requested to open his case. He is put to proof of his entire case. He must adduce evidence on all the elements of the offence(s). He leads witnesses to support his case against the accused. Only credible, relevant evidence are admitted. The witnesses are cross-examined by the defence Counsel or the accused when not represented by a Counsel. Evidence by way of exhibits are admitted in accordance with the Evidence Act.

The Defence is then called upon to present their own version of what really happened. Like the prosecution, the Defence presents witnesses and material evidence

©Journal of Contemporary Security and Safety Studies 2019

93

to rebut those presented by the prosecution against the accused. The prosecution in turn crossexamines all the witnesses presented by the defence and ensures that only relevant and admissible evidence is admitted as exhibits.

At the close of the case by the defence counsel, an address is given by him and judgment is then given within three monthsof the close of the case and that concludes formal trial in criminal justice administration.

Under the Criminal Justice Administrations that operate, the Jury system such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, Criminal Trial starts at no time when a Jury is sworn and the accused is put in their charge. Essentially therefore, a trial in Nigeria, United Kingdom, United States of America, India and Australia are similar. It starts with arraignment and ends when the accused is either discharged and acquitted on his plea or is convicted as charged and sentenced. A criminal trial in all the jurisdictions is therefore the formal investigation and determination of matters in issue between the state on behalf of the victim, and the accused before a court or Tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

Speedy Trial

Speedy denotes promptly. It is a function of time.

Speedy trial means that the accused is to be tried promptly. This concept is what the various jurisdictions refer to as trial within a reasonable time by an impartial Court or Tribunal, Thus in the Nigerian Criminal Justice Administration, Speedy trial is a fundamental right which is provided for in Section 36 of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1 9 9 9 . It is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure. Specifically, Section 35(4) provides that:

Any person who is arrested or detained in accordance with Section 3 6 ( 1 ) (c) shall be brought before a court of law within a reasonable time.

He must be tried within a period of two months from the date of his arrest or detention in case of a person who is in custody or is not entitled to bail.

For an accused who is granted bail, he must be tried within three months from the date of his arrest or detention.

Section 35(5) specifically defines reasonable time to mean:

(1) A period of one day in case of an arrest or detention in any place where there is a court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometers.

(2) A period of two days in any other cases or such longer period as in the circumstances may be considered by the court to be reasonable.

These constitutional provisions on speedy trial assumed the status of fundamental right of citizens backed by case laws as pronounced by the. Supreme Court of Nigeria, in Ariori vs Elemo where Aniagolu JSC held as follows:

In the determination of cases by courts of the land, speedy trial and fair hearing are an integral part of justice to the state and justice to the citizen. The doing of justice is an obligation which the state owes its citizen and which it exercises primarily through its third arm, namely, the Judiciary; speedy trial and fair hearing therefore becomes an aspect of public justice which sets a standard fixed by law and society which a Judge attains in the determination of cases before him and in respect of which no person in society is allowed to compromise.

In the United Kingdom, The Criminal Justice Act 1991, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 United Kingdom Magistrate Court Act 1980, Section 4.9, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996, all reflect this fundamental concept of speedy trial within a reasonable time.

More so, plea bargaining at criminal trial is also a part of speedy trial provision and has been advocated as a way of saving time and money.

In the USA's Criminal Justice system, speedy trial is provided for by the sixths Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the 6^th Amendment provides that:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to have the assistance of counsel for his defence”

The Speedy Trial Act provided very specific time limits to afford the accused person, the right to a speedy trial. At the federal level, the constitutional right to a speedy trial is reinforced by rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which authorize the presiding Judge to dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if there has been "unnecessary' delay' in presenting the charges or bringing the defendant to trial. Particularly interesting is the linkage between the right to a speedy trial and the due process as provided in the fourteenth amendment where the US Supreme Court held in Kopler V North Carolina that the right to a speedy trial must be federally recognized and enforced as an essential principle of Justice.

Recently the right to a speedy trial for the accused, has been advocated to include crime victims in' Florida. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, on May 24, 2005 signed the Law which provided speedy

94

©Journal of Contemporary Security and Safety Studies 2019 trials for all, not only the accused. Diane M. Cuddihy,

Chief Assistant Broward, public defender for the state of Florida asserted that "Speedy trial is a constitutional right that was created so that people don't languish in the system without having their day in court".

More importantly, the American Bar Association has stipulated standards of Criminal Justice. One of such standards is the Standards on Speedy Trial and Timely Resolution of Criminal cases. The three main purposes of the standards are:

(a) To effectuate the right of the accused to a speedy trial;

(b) To further the interest of the public, including victims and witnesses in the fair accurate and timely resolution of criminal cases and

(c) To ensure the effective utilization of resources.

In India, Article 22 of the Indian Constitution provides for the right of a person to speedy trial on indictment Article 22(2) is similar to Section 35 of the CFRN 1999. Speedy trial concept of reasonable time is provided for by S 309 of the Article which is similar to Section 36(5) of CRFN 1999. Section 206, S260 of the Indian Code deal with petty offences which require summary trial i.e. speedy trial.

Finally, the committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System in India have provided a comprehensive guideline for dealing with criminal cases namely, warrant cases and summons cases with the overall aim to ensure speedy disposition of criminal cases in India.

Australia, like Nigeria and USA, operate a Federal Criminal Justice system which is based on the Australian constitution and the various States' Criminal Codes. Each State, particularly Queensland and Western Australia have general provision that confer on the citizen, the right to speedy trial:

Speedy Trial in Criminal Justice: Practice &

Procedure

Delay in the administration of criminal justice is currently a matter of serious concern. Effective criminal justice system is fundamental to the maintenance of law and order. Criminal cases sometimes last so long and entail so much expenses that the average person hardly regards litigation as a viable option to dispute settlement. Police action seems to thrive and corruption has become deeply entrenched.

Delays in criminal trials have very serious effects on the accused persons especially if they are in detention awaiting trial or the complainant who will be subjected to regular appearances when his case comes up whereas, he is ordinarily not directly involved as a party in the trial.

Speedy Trial within a reasonable time has therefore become a dream rather than a reality in Nigeria. Practice and Procedural impediments have as a result institutionalized clays in Trials and has frustrated Speedy Trial in criminal justice administration.

In the U.K, USA, Australian and Indian Criminal Justice systems however, delays in Speedy Trials are not as pronounced as in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System.

impediments do exist but not as varied, and serious as are found in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. We shall now endeavour to identify some impediments to speedy trial in criminal justice.

Impediments to Speedy Trials in Criminal Justice System

1. Insufficient and inadequate personnel to

In document Cross-Sectional Study of Prevalence and Severity of Anxiety, Depression and Body Image Disturbance in Amputees in a Tertiary Care Hospital (Page 45-94)