Category: Court

Functional MRI to Serve as a Lie Detector: Hit or Miss

In the article written by Patrick Keefe, ‘Can a Brain Scan Tell if You’re Lying?’, Keefe writes about experts that side with fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and their ability to be used as a lie detector test. The lie detector test would be used in court cases to determine if the offender is guilty or innocent in the crime that was committed. With fMRI still being a work in progress with many more studies needed to be done to be able to effectively and safely use this tool in the court room, I deem this technique inadmissible. FMRI brain scanning is a relatively new tool in forensic science that still needs many questions resolved, and the overall scan itself is a very tedious process for the person receiving the scan. More about fMRI and what it entitles will be covered in the following paragraphs as well as the upside to using fMRI as evidence in the criminal court system.

As previously said before, fMRI is a new technique that is being introduced into the court room and with little to no real-world testing or studies that have been performed, there is no certainty that fMRI will work in a real-world application. So far, they have tested fMRI to see if it is reliable on participants that are instructed to lie but this raises some concern. The question which arises when this is brought up is: is this indeed reliable? This can produce a similar outcome to the Hawthorne effect because the participants are aware that they are indeed participants, and they are being told to lie to the experimenters when asked questions while undergoing the fMRI lie detection test. The real-world people that would actually undergo a test like this one are not lying because they are being directed to lie by an experimenter, but moreover as a result of an action that led them to go to prison or jail and as result have to attend a court trial where they are being convicted. The difference between the two is that one is being forced to lie knowingly which can have an outcome of illegitimate results and the other one is doing so willingly without someone impacting their actions. The person that is being instructed to lie is processing what they are being told and one of the tasks is to lie. This could produce results that are not accurate because they already know that they will have to lie and this could have a potential effect on the brain psychologically. This is where a similar effect of the Hawthorne effect arises, there could be an alteration of behavior between the person who would be undergoing this test in a real-world event versus a person who is doing so for the sake of an experiment and its outcome. This could possibly result in psychological changes between the two candidates that would both be taking the fMRI test. So how exactly would obtaining evidence work to be able to use fMRI one day in the future? As professor Greely stated in the article, it is not possible to detain people just to experiment on them to see whether or not the fMRI truly works. It is impractical to gather real-world data without breaking ethical codes or having strict experimental studies. Nonetheless, these studies would still yield questioning results as every mind is truly unique in its own way. Meaning, these distinctive results may vary from person to person depending if they had or currently have a mental illness or any mental differences from other participants, but we will talk about this a bit later on.

On another hand, another tool that is used as a lie detector would be the polygraph test. This test measures a person’s heart rate, breathing, and electrical skin conductivity while the person administering the polygraph test asks the participant questions. Because the participant is hooked up to a machine that translates the physiological results into a graph, the person administering the polygraph would be able to note the differences between a lie and the truth solely based on the graphical differences. This technique was used in the court room to deem whether a person was guilty or not guilty of crimes that he/she were prosecuted for. In most states, this lie detection test is now unused and inadmissible in court because of its lack of validity. Although it is no longer used in court cases it still remains commonly used throughout jobs and as stated in the article, it also is used in background checks that are ran by the government. Even though they are used in areas of employment and used by the government in various ways, polygraph tests could be outsmarted, and someone could learn to control their physiological responses while lying. The polygraph test would not capture the responses because the heart beat would not alter, perspiring would be absent, and so on. Something similar as seen in the polygraph test could happen to the fMRI lie detection test. If we do not conduct enough research into this tool that we could possibly access in the court room, then the chance of convicting someone incorrectly arises. Although, convicting someone incorrectly does happen due to evidence being incorrect or mishandled, or for any other reason, it is imperative that accuracy for the fMRI lie detection test be very low. An important factor to take into consideration with fMRI are mental illnesses among people.

Going back to the topic of mental illnesses, how exactly would fMRI play out with people that suffer from mental illnesses? There are a wide range of mental illnesses and they are all different in their own way and each of them affect individuals more or less differently than other illnesses. This is a very important topic that must be discussed before or if fMRI would even be used in the court room. Among mental illnesses, how would the people that have had a mental illness in the past but no longer suffer from that illness fit into this fMRI lie detection test, compared to someone psychologically healthy? As talked about in the article, another implication for fMRI would be the people that have had previous head injuries or people suffering from strokes. The people that have suffered head injuries, mental illness(es), or people that have suffered strokes would not be able to receive this same brain scan and expect the same outcome. Certain parts of their brain work differently and that could have an impact on the fMRI while conducting the lie detecting test. A multitude of studies need to be performed for fMRI lie detection tests to be legitimate because it is illogical to think that a psychologically healthy person will yield the same results as a person that suffers from a mental illness. Switching shifts, another important factor that the article brings up is movement during the scan. The slightest of head movement can throw the data off resulting in poor results. This is not convenient for the person taking the brain scan because not only is the scan already being performed in a closed enclosure which could cause the person to feel uncomfortable in the confined space, but they cannot move their head even the slightest bit. This could be rather uncomfortable for many people as this is not customary to the majority of people. If the person did move their head, this can result in swayed results which could lead to a bigger problem such as false data. This data, if used, can result in a more serious issue because it is being utilized in a trial to prove innocence or guilt. Another implication that could arise with head movement ties with mental illness. If the person receiving the scan suffers from a mental illness that causes involuntary movements such as an essential tremor which is an involuntary movement of (usually) the head, then what would be the options for this person involving the fMRI? They would most likely not be able to participate in the brain scan and be ruled out as a participant. Along this issue, the article states that fMRI dealing with the court system currently has no protocols. Protocols are a very important part of the procedures and rules that would entitle functional MRI are critical. Although fMRI is not completely and thoroughly put together, protocols are nonetheless necessary and should be used. Protocols should be established to not only make things easier for the person undergoing the scan but also the person conducting the scan. It would be much easier to abide by a certain protocol that everyone has to follow rather than figuring everything out case by case. This also reduces the chance of errors in scans and procedures as well. It reduces errors because if one is following a protocol or guideline, there is little room to make errors. The person performing the scan must follow the protocol and not do whatever comes to mind. Dr. Daniel Langleben, a researcher for lie detection, mentioned in the article that something very controversial about functional MRI was that the people conducting the scans are literally looking into the someone’s brain. People might find this unpleasant because the people conducting the scans, and the people that would attend the court trial would be able to see inside the person’s brain and what their brain activity looks like. This might come off as intruding in the defendant’s life and as an invasion of privacy, the defendant may not want to participate in this type of lie detection test and instead turn away from a test like this one. On another note, according to the article, a researcher claims that the simple fact that the defendant wants to take the functional MRI test holds some weight in terms of being innocent. I do not agree with his thought process as I do not believe that the simple fact that a person wants to take the fMRI test to prove their innocence means that they are more than likely innocent. If anything, I feel as if this thought process would lead to errors. If one is thinking that the defendant is more than likely innocent, you may involuntarily change minor things in the experiment or unknowingly rephrase questions because you strongly believe they are innocent.

There are some positive attributes to the functional MRI tool, and the brain scan as a whole would be a big step in science and a great accomplishment not only for science and technology, but for law as well. To be able to use a tool that measures brain activity and blood flow and use this to help the court system determine if a defendant is guilty or innocent is remarkable. A great feature that was mentioned in the article that functional MRI has is that you cannot learn or fake brain activity. You cannot teach your brain to have more blood flow in a certain area of your brain. This is a great feature because it ensures that one cannot manipulate or alter the results unlike the polygraph test. As mentioned above, with the polygraph test it measures physiological changes such as heart rate, perspiration, blood pressure, skin conductivity, etc and one can control these factors if learned. But something one cannot do is control where your blood flow in the brain is directed to. Although functional MRI has many great features, there is still a lot of research to be done in various areas such as mental illness. There are also a lot of complications with using functional MRI’s that do not all have answers to them.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that fMRI should not be used in the future because there are too many implications that get in the middle of fMRI working properly in the court room. There is little to no real-world research that could be used or applied to this relatively new tool that looks promising. Although, using fMRI as evidence for a court case sounds propitious, there are more losses than gains in my perspective. According to the article, the current experiments that have been conducted were by people that were instructed to lie which could have impacted their train of thought and thus, possibly causing psychological changes in the way they think or perceive a certain statement or thought. It is also a very complicated matter when it comes to people with mental illnesses taking this fMRI scan as a lie detector because their brains can be structurally and constituently different compared to a healthy person’s brain. There is also the concern of not moving one’s head while the scan is being performed because it can cause poor results which can lead to swayed results. Another issue that arises are ethical concerns. The question of whether it is morally and ethically okay to look into someone’s brain and see their brain activity comes up. Not everyone would agree to undergo this brain scan, but that does not imply that they are necessarily guilty. Likewise, a defendant going through with the scan does not imply that they are more than likely innocent. In conclusion, the article did state functional MRI can have a hopeful future with a lot more research, but even though there are some upsides to this tool, I do not believe the cons outweigh the pros and I believe that functional MRI will not provide a reliable means of lie detection.

U.S. Supreme Court Case Analysis: Case Study Essay

Roper v. Simmons is a court case that managed to progress all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. This case dealt with the issue of whether or not it is constitutional for someone to be given the death penalty when they committed a crime under the age of eighteen. Christopher Simmons brought this dilemma to light when he planned and committed a capital murder at age seventeen. In 1993 Missouri, Simmons, along with two other friends – fifteen-year-old Charles Benjamin and sixteen-year-old John Tessmer – plotted to kill Shirley Crook by breaking and entering her home. This sudden desire to murder her began when Simmons and Crook became involved in a car accident. Simmons convinced his friends to go along with his plan and assured them that they would be able to get away with the crime since they were under eighteen. Their plan was to tie her up and throw her off a bridge and eventually rob her. However, when the three met up at around 2 a.m., Tessmer decided not to follow through with it, leaving just Simmons and Benjamin left to commit the offense. The remaining two broke into the victim’s house by reaching through “an open window and unlocking the back door” (Kennedy), where they proceeded to achieve their murderous intention.

There wasn’t any indication or knowledge of what happened to Shirley Crook until the afternoon of September 9, when her husband Steven Crook returned from an overnight trip and found his house in disarray and his wife gone. Steven called the police immediately and reported that his wife was missing. Later that afternoon, fishermen were able to recover her body from a river. The police had no suspects at the time until word got around that Christopher Simmons had some involvement. Simmons was bragging to his friends about killing a woman, and when the police were informed of this, he was arrested and brought to the police station. Simmons confessed to the police that he killed Shirley Crook and agreed to perform a reenactment of the crime on video.

Steps Before Reaching the Supreme Court

Before making it to the U.S. Supreme Court, Simmons’s case went to trial. He was charged with burglary, kidnapping, stealing, and murder in the first degree by the State. Since Simmons was seventeen at the time of the offense, he was “outside the criminal jurisdiction of the Missouri juvenile court system” (Kennedy) and thus tried as an adult. The State wanted Simmons to receive the death penalty and brought along everything that could incriminate him to the trial. The State took the victim’s family members to the stand to show the jury how much they have been affected by Crook’s death. Simmons’s attorneys, on the other hand, brought an officer from the Missouri juvenile justice system and Simmons’s family to show how Simmons had no prior convictions and also how compassionate he is with his family.

The jury’s final decision was in favor of the State and believed Simmons should receive the death penalty, and the judge agreed. After the ruling, Simmons acquired new counsel who went to the trial court to “set aside the conviction and sentence” (Kennedy). The trial court, however, denied the counsel and agreed with the judgment of the previous ruling. Simmons tried again and again for an appeal but was denied every time. It wasn’t until 2002 when the Missouri Supreme Court decided to delay Simmons’s execution as the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding a similar case of whether or not to give a mentally disabled person the death penalty – Atkins v. Virginia.

The Missouri Supreme Court reconsidered Simmons’s case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for a mentally disabled person to be executed was in violation of cruel and unusual punishment. After recognizing the change in America’s societal views on minor executions, the Missouri Supreme Court denied the ruling of giving Simmons the death penalty and instead gave him life in prison without parole. The State of Missouri, not liking the court’s ruling, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they agreed to hear it.

Arguments

The Roper v. Simmons case was argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on October 13, 2004. The petitioner was Donald P. Roper who was represented by James R. Layton, and the respondent was Christopher Simmons who was represented by Seth P. Waxman. Layton begins his argument by stating how the Missouri Supreme Court disregarded a previous ruling that occurred during another U.S. Supreme Court case similar to Simmons’s, Stanford v. Kentucky, a case that approved the enforcement of executing minors who were at least sixteen or seventeen years old when they committed the crime. Layton goes on to say how the Missouri Supreme Court compared their ruling with that of the Atkins v. Virginia one when they were of completely different circumstances. The Atkins case dealt with the issue of being mentally disabled when committing a capital offense, and the Missouri Supreme Court took this into consideration but went beyond the borders of the level of maturity that was being questioned. Layton argues that some people at age seventeen already have the maturity that can be found in others who are older. If a seventeen-year-old is able to do most things on their own, then he is aware of his actions and what is acceptable or not.

Waxman, on the other hand, begins his argument by asking what the minimum age is for someone to be given the death penalty – should they commit a capital offense – if our society’s standards keep evolving. He goes on to say how our society has agreed that eighteen is the age at which childhood and adulthood are drawn. If someone is eighteen or younger, then they are still immature. However, when executions are being questioned for them, it is a very heavy topic and needs careful deliberation. Waxman also talks about how science plays a role in minors and their actions. There is scientific evidence that proves people below the age of seventeen do not have the level of maturity older ones do, so juveniles should not receive the same kind of punishment as someone who is older would get themselves.

Decisions

Majority

After hearing each side of the petitioner and respondent’s case, the U.S. Supreme Court evidently came to a decision on March 1, 2005. It was a 5-4 decision in favor of Waxman and Simmons. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were younger than eighteen when the crime occurred. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority which included himself, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens, JJ. Kennedy stated that when minors commit a horrific offense, the State is allowed to relinquish some of the offender’s basic liberties but cannot decide whether or not to execute him. The Court made its decisions based on the evolving standards of our nation and the rejection of juvenile death penalties in thirty states is proof that there is a national agreement against the old view of killing minors.

Minority

The minority opinion was expressed by Justice O’Connor and Justice Scalia, along with Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist. O’Connor believed that there was not a significant maturity difference between adults and juveniles that would justify excluding juveniles from the death penalty. He also believed that since eight states had considered executing sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, juvenile execution should be considered everywhere. Scalia, on the other hand, thought the majority opinion substituted their own beliefs with that of the people, and criticized them for counting non-death penalty states toward an overall agreement against juvenile executions. Both agree, however, that in the end, the Missouri Supreme Court should have followed the ruling of the Atkins v. Kentucky case.

Concurring

There was also a concurring opinion from Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg. Stevens explained that their ruling today reaffirms the Court’s interpretation of the Eight Amendment. However, he believes that if the Eighth Amendment had been ‘frozen’ when it was originally drafted, it would impose no restriction to executing seventeen-year-olds today.

Effects on American Society

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision has somewhat affected American society today. Before this ruling, there were only eight states – out of fifty – that executed juveniles after they committed a capital offense. These juveniles, additionally, were only between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. This case and decision only affected a small number of convicted offenders, however, this was still an impactful thing for many people. So far, there have been seventy-two juvenile offenders in twelve states that have been affected by the Court’s Roper v. Simmons ruling. Although this seems like a meager number, it is still seventy-two kids that won’t be getting killed because of what they did. Whether it was intentional or not, the government and states will now not have to make life-or-death decisions for kids who did such a heinous crime. All they would need to do is give them whatever punishment is fit and keep them away from society for a while.

My Opinion

My opinion on this court case is very similar to that of the majority opinions. I do believe that people under the age of eighteen should not be given the death penalty, even if they committed a horrific crime like murdering someone. They are still kids who need to be rehabilitated instead of being thrown away by society, not worthy of any help. Especially if they have never committed any type of capital offense before. We, as a society, should not just look into what they have done, but also what led them to do that. We should know what their home environment was like, their mental health history, and any tragic events they’ve witnessed or gone through themselves so we can help them. Although people at the age of sixteen and seventeen should be aware of their actions and any consequences that come with them by now, they still should be given a second chance. We should not murder people who have murdered others, because that fixes nothing, and in the end, we are only contradicting ourselves.

Forensic Hair Morphology as a Type of Testimony Used in Court: Analytical Essay

The purpose of this essay is to examine the credibility and validity of forensic hair morphology. This study examines the morphological physical characteristics of human hair. Microscopical hair analysis only compares class characteristics and does not obtain any genetic information linked to an individual. In recent years there has been increasing controversy over the admissibility and reliability of hair comparison evidence used in courtrooms. Specifically, microscopic human hair analysis before the use of DNA profiling. Since the introduction of DNA analysis, forensic investigators focus their attention on evidence that can be narrowed to one individual using nuclear or mitochondrial DNA. Due to the flawed methodology many people were wrongfully convicted for crimes they did not commit, since the discovery of this flaw many rules were put in place to make sure wrongful convictions were not committed in the criminal justice system.

Hair morphology is not currently used as evidence alone in court, although it can be utilized alongside DNA testing to solidify the evidence. Forensic hair examination is a comparative discipline that works with microscopy, biology, anatomy, and histology. The characteristics of human hair are assessed by observing the anatomy of the hair, which then reveals categories like race and disease. Other factors, such as the forced removal of hair at a crime scene, can be a useful tool for the investigation to prove that a crime has been committed. To be foundationally valid, a field must utilize a method that’s been tested countless times by multiple people and prove to be repeatable and reproducible. Scientists must compare their findings of the morphological features found in hair, which include length, scales, color, and medullar patterns. Scientists compare the results numerous times to solidify conclusions. This is particularly important when it comes to hair comparisons because of the bias that a person can portray knowing the evidence and details of a crime scene. There have been many debates that discuss the validity of hair comparison in crimes, particularly the discrimination between the suspect and a hair found at the scene. Many hairs share similar alleles and characteristics, which may result in bias by the examiner. For years the courts accepted that hair comparisons as reliable and valid in court. However, the Daubert ruling was later introduced to the courtroom to consider if the methodology used is scientifically acceptable and valid, an expert could not testify about the certainty of the technique used unless it proved to be accurate and the rate error is unknown, which applies to hair morphology and the bias judgments that follow. The concept of error rates is essential to court cases due to human errors like mishandling samples or contaminations that contribute to wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions obligated judges to thoroughly look over the evidence and base their case only on scientifically valid reasoning, not opinions. Hair morphology is not valid in the forensic and scientific community and is becoming less appropriate in courtrooms due to newer forensic tests. Moreover, forensic science can fail in a few ways, such as the fact that it lacks reliability and the inability to reproduce valid results, and incompetence.

The relevance of hair morphology is declining in popularity, essentially becoming a dying art due to its lack of DNA. The Innocence Project, which exonerates the wrongfully convicted, has freed hundreds of innocent people due to the error in microscopical hair comparisons. Due to the fact that the hair comparisons were deemed reliable in innocent people’s cases, the forensic investigators were affected by tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is a great flaw in the criminal justice system, where they focus on a suspect and select and filter the evidence that will build a case for conviction while tuning out and ignoring evidence that points away from the guilt. There has been a devaluation of microscopic human hair analysis since DNA profiling, which matches the genetic makeup of one particular individual from the root of the hair. There is a decline in this practice and is rarely used as incriminating evidence on its own. Hair microscopy was the second most popular type of testimony used in court, yet half of the cases involved improper statistics because the testimony was comparing common characteristics with reference hairs collected from a defendant or victim. In a recent FBI article, there were comparisons made between microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons and found that 1 in 11% of the cases revealed that the hairs that were deemed ‘similar’ but were not a match through DNA. 158 people were exonerated in the United States using post-conviction DNA evidence that proved their innocence after years of wrongful conviction. There are a lot of limitations when it comes to hair comparisons because hair cannot be uniquely identified by one person.

DNA has revolutionized criminal investigations by becoming faster and easier to obtain. Hair is one of the most frequent types of evidence found at a crime scene, which is easy to obtain, especially where a violent struggle has occurred. Forensic scientists then focus their attention on the DNA of the root of the hair that can be extracted and linked to the perpetrator. The reason hair comparison methods are outdated is because of the birth of DNA. There are three types of DNA. The first type is male-linked Y-chromosomes that are directly passed from father to son. Autosomal DNA tests all the chromosomes, and the third type is mitochondrial DNA, where a mother passes her genes to her daughter. Nuclear DNA cannot be isolated from a hair shaft, making it impossible to search for DNA, but if a hair is still attached to the root, then it can be extracted and examined by keratinocyte cells, which can provide genetic information about an individual. DNA is short sequences that are repeated numerous times and vary from each individual. DNA is found in most cells of the body, such as a person’s saliva perspiration or epithelial cells, to extract the DNA chemicals are added to break open the cells and isolate the DNA from other components. Genetic identification and profiling are only possible through DNA analysis. Another efficient scientific technique is mitochondrial DNA, which is mentioned earlier and is more abundant than nuclear DNA. A typical human cell has thousands of copies of mitochondrial DNA as opposed to one single copy of nuclear DNA. Each individual is very unique, but genetically humans share a lot of similarities. The region that differs people is a region of DNA strands called polymorphisms. Each human inherits a unique combination from their blood parents. This technique has a very high success rate because individuals sharing a common maternal bloodline share the exact same mitochondrial DNA. The early life of DNA analysis did not work unless physically given the suspect and their blood, which is extremely unlikely to happen. The criminal justice system should ensure that its DNA sample is valid, reliable, and tested multiple times, and always supports the final conclusion. The introduction of this new technology impacted society and the forensic field for the better. Another amazing factor of DNA is that there is a global database that holds information on known offenders that can be transferred from one team to another. INTERPOL holds fingerprints, facial images, and DNA that is easily accessible.

Hair comparison was used as early as 1934 when microscopic hair comparison was used in a murder trial. The forensic team visually compared a hair at the scene to the accused. This was then commonly used by laboratory personnel as part of their investigations. Since the birth of DNA, hair analysis is no longer available in courtrooms. As mentioned earlier, hair comparison can only be used in court if it is present with DNA analysis.

Microscopic hair comparison analysis is a flawed forensic technique that does not pass the Daubert ruling and cannot be presented in a courtroom. In contrast to hair morphology, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA testing is the most effective way of identifying individuals based on trace evidence left at a crime scene. Unlike hair analysis, DNA is individually fixed and unique. DNA is replicable, valid, relevant, and has international large databases. The Innocence Project proves that this flawed system has convicted innocent people of heinous crimes due to hair comparisons. These people were later exonerated by DNA analysis, a new recent reliable source. Forensic hair morphology proved to be seriously outdated by newer forensic technologies that are more sophisticated as well as not containing a concept of error rates due to inefficient results that can be replicated and reproduced. There is a decline in this practice and is rarely used as incriminating evidence on its own. The way to see hair microscopy used is when presented with DNA. Hair microscopy was the second most popular type of testimony used in court, yet half of the cases involved improper statistics due to the fact that the testimony was comparing common characteristics with reference hairs collected from a defendant or victim. There are a lot of limitations when it comes to hair comparisons because hair cannot be uniquely identified by one person just by the hair shaft alone. Thanks to this discovery online databases have been created to quickly and efficiently shift through millions of samples to match the DNA to the perpetrator and give the victim the justice they deserve.

References

1. Friedman, J., Brand, J. It Is Now Up to the Courts: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Santa Clara Law Review, 57, no. 2 (2017): 367-384
2. Hampikian, G., West, E., and Akselrod, O. (2011). The Genetics of Innocence: Analysis of 194 U.S. DNA Exonerations. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 12: 97-120.
3. Houck, M., and Budowle, B. Correlation of Microscopic and Mitochondrial DNA Hair Comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, no. 5 (2002): 1-4.
4. Saks, M. J., Risinger, D. M., Rosenthal, H., Thompson, W. C. Context Effects in Forensic Science: A Review and Application of the Science of Science to Crime Laboratory Practices in the United States. Science & Justice, 77-90 (2003).
5. Smith, S. L., Linch, C. A. A Review of Major Factors Contributing to Errors in Human Hair Association by Microscopy. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 1999; 20(3): 269-273.
6. Taupin, J. M. Forensic Hair Morphology Comparison – a Dying Art or Junk Science? Science and Justice 2004; 44(2): 95-100.

Workplace Environment And Employees’ Performance: The Court System

Introduction

The courts system in Nigeria and elsewhere has been composed to settle disputes, ensure public order, prosperity and sustain societal peace. This has been the practice of civilized states to ensure that as important as justice is, it’s not left in the hands of political and social interests.

The courts system in Nigeria as presently constituted was established by Nigerian Constitution of 1999. Though the 1999 Constitution is not the first legal framework that established the court system in Nigeria, it is the most recent legal provision for Courts. The constitution provides the institution with hierarchy and jurisdiction to try and convict citizens and institutions for various offences against both the private and public interests. The Constitution specifically provides for a Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Courts and The High Court of States and the Federal Capital Territory, The Customary Court of Appeal of States and the Federal Capital Territory, The Sharia Court of Appeal of States and the Federal Capital Territory. Others are The Magistrate Court, The Customary Court, Sharia Court, Election Tribunal and the Code of Conduct Tribunal respectively.

For courts to play the very important state function of dispensing justice for the good of all citizens, it engages employees in different capacities ranging from judges to security personnel and put them in an environment to enable them perform different tasks pursuant to the dispensation of justice. In assessing the workplace environment and employees’ performance in Nigerian courts system, the paper operationalises key terms, appreciates the nature of workplace environment in Nigerian courts and examines the negative impact of nonperformance of emmployees in Nigerian courts. The paper further highlighted various ways to improve workplace environment for better employee performance.

Operational Definition of Terms

• Workplace Environment: Workplace environment refers to the location, surroundings as well as the physical and non physical conditions in which employees operates.
• Employees Performance: Employee performance refers to the ability of an employee to accomplish his or her mission based on the expectations of an employer/organization.
• The Court System: The court system refers to the entire processes, procedures and conditions embarked upon to achieve the interpretation and settlement of disputes among parties in line with set down laws of the state.

The Workplace Environment in Nigerian Courts system

There is evidence that before 1955, Nigeria had what was best described as a judiciary or Court system. At that time, the entire country had a single justice and under him, there were judges, magistrates, registrars and Clerical officers, many of whom were expatriates. While expatriates always occupied the exalted positions of judges and magistrates, Africans were mostly registrars and clerical officers. Under the unitary arrangement, judges and magistrates were expected to serve in any part of Nigeria (Ademola, nd).

When it became obvious that Nigeria was better as a federal state, some argued for a unitary system for the courts as they believed the system will bind the regions that were to be created better. This was however not the case as there was a major challenge in terms of distributing of staff to the regions and Lagos. The country therefore, like other organs of government, regionised the courts/judicial system.

Even under this new arrangement, as it had always been, the judges and magistrates were perceived by many as the most important personnel in the court system. While this opinion may be substantiated as these category of employees wield a lot of influence, suffice to say that because of the very many activities of the courts, other line employees are hired to perform various roles in the discharge of justice. Therefore, as Ademola (n.d) insists, the various positions held by employees, high or low is not to be taken as a conclusive index to their importance in general scheme of justice system. It is the collective efforts of all categories of employees that lead to quality justice at all levels of the courts as provided by the constitution.

Overtime however, employees’ performance in the justice system has been deteriorating and affecting the dispensation of justice to citizens. The courts have, especially in recent time been accused of miscarriage of justice or as a tool in the hands of political elites or the rich and privilege in the society (Shehu, Bin Uthman and Osman, 2017). This accusation is a direct affront on the employees of the courts as employees of any organization are seen as the determinants of such organizations.

Many reasons can be adduced for court employees’ underperformance in workplace environment:

• Lack of growth opportunities: Employees goals vary- while some may just be after job stability, others may want to progress within an organizations. No matter what employees want, there must be opportunities for upward movement. Once employees perceive that there no room for growth even in the face of hard work, such employees can become frustrated and unproductive.
• Lack of variety: Lack of variety leads employees to monotony of work and causes lack of inspiration in workplace.
• Lack of communication: The inability of an organisation to communicate set goals, objectives and targets and other developments with employees constantly and consistently misdirect employees focus as each may be pursuing objective that may be parallel or not very crucial at a particular period.
• Work related stress: Lack of rest arising from very busy schedule of work eventually leads to staff underperformance.
• Interference of political issues: Because of political factors within or outside of workplace environment, employees’ morale towards work is sometimes dampened. This situation leads to underperformance of staff.
• Bad work environment: This may not necessarily be aesthetical. Work environment can be said to be bad when the general vibe in the office is negatively and highly disorganized to an extent that employees can hardly cope with as they perform their tasks.
• Lacks of challenge: If duties are monotonous, it is very easy for employees to switch to autopilot. Sometimes, it is only when management challenges the capacity of staff that they innovate or create solutions to organizational problems.
• Lack of incentives: Incentives are seen as stimulants that may result to better employees’ output. So, when organizations fail to provide reasons for employees to feel obligated to achieve more, it leads to bad attitude to work.
• Lack of direction: When leadership of an organization is unable to clearly define its goals/objectives and clearly demonstrate the ability to pursue set goals/objectives, the employees lack a sense of direction.
• Lack of resources: This is the inability of staff to perform their jobs owing to unavailability of materials, facilities or tools with which they combine with their manpower to produce.

The Impact of Court Employees Underperformance on Justice Administration in Nigeria

As a result of the forgoing nature of workplace environment in Nigerian court system, the quality of justice administration in Nigeria has been on a steady decline (Nwabueze, 2007). The underperformance of the Nigerian court system has specifically affected the delivery of justice in the following ways:

Unnecessary delays in justice administration. For instance, as at 2016, over 5000 cases dating as far back as 2005 were said to be pending pending at the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

1. Deliberate attempts to block negotiations
2. Corrupt practices among parties to cases
3. Open hostilities among parties to cases
4. Refusal or delay in making trial records available
5. Rising rate of jungle justice as a result of lack of confidence in the court system
6. The informal cost of prosecuting a matter before a Nigerian Court
7. Breach of oath of secrecy by concerned officers of the courts.

How to improve workplace environment for better employees’ performance in Nigerian Courts

Since performance of court employees determines the success or otherwise in justice delivery to citizens, attention must therefore be paid on the value that individuals add to the system in a particular period. To achieve that, employees should not only be considered as the single most important component of justice administration. In addition to manpower, they must be provided with a workplace that supports the task they perform. To do this is to ensure the following:

Provision of tools that support task: Staff who have all the tools they require to perform their task are most likely to achieve set objectives for the court and indeed for the entire system. Such tools can be computers, safes, recorders, projectors printers, paper among others.

Correct and timely communications: Sharing valuable information such as the set goals, prepares employees to timely perform their task in line with leadership direction.

Creation of opportunities for organizational growth: Staff performance is influenced immensely by availability of space and opportunities for staff growth. The believe that one has a chance to work towards a certain organizational position tend to drive individuals towards extraordinary performance and by so doing, they contribute in pushing the wheels of justice system forward.

Motivation and incentives to staff: Job motivators and incentives are very important in boosting staff performance in work place. Motivators and incentives vary from prompt payment of salary and allowances to award and recognition of employees for hard work and extraordinary performance. When employees are rest assured of their financial and health security, they dare to break new grounds to the benefit of their organisations.

Provision of social services for employees: To release work related stress and increase performance, resources like sports and gaming facilities can be provided by government for staff to take advantage of at a location not to far removed from staff residences. This strategy helps to keep staff together to enable them share resources.

Periodic employee rotation: To avoid monotony of work, employees should be periodically moved to different sectors or departments. This exercise will not only enrich their experience, it will also bring satisfaction and check possible irregularities that may have arisen if an employee is allowed to maintain a particular job position for too long a time.

Avoidance of Political Interference and Control: Nothing destroys justice administration as much as political interference and control. Once the justice system is influenced politically, there is likelihood of negligence of work environment and court clients and eventually the diversion of the course of justice in favour of those who have political power or those whose can afford “justice”.

Avoidance of corruption: Like a cancer-warm, corruption which has eaten deep in every sphere of Nigeria’s national business has infected most of the employees of the courts in Nigeria. It is common to find employees of the courts asking for or taking bribe; from the judge to the typist to perform various official roles. This state of affairs has led to the miscarriage of justice in favour of those who can afford to bribe their way through the court system.

Granting of full financial autonomy to the judiciary: Financial autonomy for the judiciary is non-negotiable if the courts are to perform their constitutional role maximally. A financially independent court system can provide for its employees better and faster than if it were to wait on its financier (the executive and the legislature) who often times uses the finances as a bases to “negotiate” justice.

Conclusion

It is no doubt that the courts system has been embraced as the most civilized method of dispute resolution in modern societies since the beginning of modern history. The system has also continually been manned by supposed seasoned employees. In discharging their legitimate duties however, these employees are challenged by several factors including their work environment which is supposed to provide them the requirement to perform.

In Nigeria, the work environment for judicial workers has been a far cry from what would trigger employees’ performance to quality justice administration. The situation has far reaching consequences on Nigerian citizens. There are delayed court judgments, politically, ethnically influenced and purchased judgments. So that even when there are a few judgments that are concluded in their merits, they are over-shadowed or adjudged in bad light. For Nigeria to pursue its agenda of development and occupy it rightful space in the comity of nations, all efforts must be made to clean the court system of corruption, ensure their financial autonomy as well as shield them from political interference. This is the only way Nigeria can fix the justice system for it to compete with its peers elsewhere.

References

1. Ademola, A. (n.d). Personnel problems in the administration of justice in Nigeria. Retrieved from www.schlarship.law.duke.edu on September 23, 2019.
2. Nwabueze, B. (2007). The judiciary as the third estate of realm. Ibadan: Gold Press Limited.
3. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
4. Shehu, M.I, Bin Othman, M. F. and Osman, N.B. (2017). Nigerian justice system: The ideal, hope and reality. Journal of Management Sciences, 15 (3).

Concept Of Equity And Its Principles

Introduction

Equity is accepted as a wonderful creation of court of chancery which expects the perfection of the justice for all, surpassing the boundaries of Common law and it came to ensure the fairness in Common law system where justice delivered through rigid and inflexible series of actions. The concept of equity derived from of natural justice because it mainly encompassed unbiasedness and equal access to the tribunal and documents cited as evidence enshrining fairness, reasonableness and the very idea of justice.

The general and broad principles of equity are formulated in statements of maxims of equity. Mainly, 12 statement of maxims are revered and act in advisory capacity to deliver the justice through principles of equity and those are interrelated or incorporate each other in judicial operation.

Remedies in equity

It is apparent that distinction of Common-law and equity mostly based on the fact that equity provides different remedies for various instances. Common law remedies are basically based on awards of money for losses incurred by damages. In claims such as breach of contract, negligence and fraud, Common law also provides remedies of damages, common law tracing or money had and received. On the contrary, equity provides variety of remedies for claims such as breach of trust, tracing property and property on insolvency. At discretionary of courts, the specialty of remedies provided by equity is that those are tailor-made and contextual .

Mainly, remedies in following jurisdictions are available in equity to be enjoyed by both parties involved in litigation at discretionary powers of the court. Equity plays an important role to rectify or cure defects of the Common law and there, three types of jurisdictions under which remedies are delivered can be recognized in equity. Those are namely, exclusive jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction and axillary jurisdiction.

Exclusive Jurisdiction

A property which had been conveyed by a settlor to a trustee for use of another designated beneficiary for limited time and limited purposes is not recognised in Common law.

Not being recognized this fiduciary relationship, a settlor did not have a remedy to imposed by Common law courts and trustee was recognized as absolute owner of the previously conveyed property.

Quite the opposite, court of chancery recognize equitable right of person though Common law does not. So, fiduciary obligations between both parties are recognized only in the equity and remedies are enforced for the very meaning of the justice.

For cases, such as Valliyammai Atchi v. Majeed (1944) and Muttamah v. Thiyagarajah (1960) where agreement of reconveyance are not notarially executed (as per the section 2 of the prevention of frauds) the transferor do not have the right of claim in common law but resort to equity that enable transferor to create trust in accordance with Trust Ordinance which give rise the equitable interest of the transferor. So, recognition of trust and imposition of constructive trust are remarkable exclusive remedy which is attributed as exclusive jurisdiction provided by equity

Concurrent Jurisdiction

In a case, facts might bring about both equitable and common law actions simultaneously. For instance, where contractual obligations are breached in the agreement the plaintiff can sue against defendant claiming damages in Common law and Specific performance in equity concurrently. In Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) , Yet Jessel MR stated that there were two estates because one estate is at Common law and the other at equity. he further stated that both jurisdictions are exercised by only one court and the equity rules prevails in it. In that case, the court held that a leasehold agreement was enforceable in equity.

Auxiliary Jurisdiction

In the adjudication process, equitable actions are to support to the attainment of justice. Equity doesn’t either accept plaintiff’s claim or defendant’s claim as it is and initiate doctrine of discovery so that find and disclose relevant documents in involved parties’ possessions, power or custody. This assists the court to determine of legal rights of involved parties of the case.

Where plaintiff’s rights are infringed plaintiff can pray for an order of injunction under auxiliary jurisdiction which is to enforce legal rights of plaintiff if the damage is inadequate remedy , and refrain from apprehension or continuing infringement of rights. When exercising auxiliary jurisdiction in equity, the equitable remedy of account derived from chancery as a pecuniary remedy for profit resulted from a breach of equitable obligation in aid of common law rights.

Furthermore, equitable compensation, estoppel, rescission, rectification, imposition of resulting trust, subrogation, lien, charge and specific restitution are ordered by court according to principles of equity to protect equitable rights of people. Of those remedies, specific performance is considered as an exceptional remedy in English law

Specific performance and its application in the law

Briefly, it can be stated that specific performance is a decree made by the court to compel parties to perform their contractual obligations formulated in terms of contracts on goods, lands or services when a party on whom the contractual obligations rest on do not honour the performance. Noncompliance of the decree by the court considered as contempt of court and thus, defendant can be imprisoned upon those charges.

Specific performance is cannot be recognized as the default remedy and only be available for particular circumstance of the justice. Since, specific performance would be invoked as some sort of last resort by the court at its discretion it has been attributed to characteristics of residual and discretionary remedy. however, Specific performance used along with Common law and because facts of the case give rise to both legal and equitable actions.

If pecuniary damages can resolve the matter adequately in common law order specific performance is not granted by the court. This is the instance where the application of the statement of maximum that equity follows the law can be observed because equity is not going to circumvent Common law actions.

Generally, a decree of specific performance given by the court to enforceable contracts. Nonetheless, if agreements are of part performance principle or of promissory estoppel may be considered to award specific performance for anticipatory breach or to prevent the unfair denial of the agreement.

As equity acts in personam, hence, specific performance also acts in personam and affects defendants personally despite that fact where properties in the issue, locates. Therefore, agreement in USA and real and personal assets located in Scotland were subjected to order of specific performance in courts in England.

As per the statements of maxims “he or she who comes into equity must come with clean hands and “he or she who seeks equity must do equity” reflects the position of equity. Hence, in case of Nelson v. Nelson (1995) due to defrauding acts committed by the plaintiff she was about to lose her property. Hence, before she got her equitable relief as specific performance, she had to pay back the government. the bottom-line is that a person who does not have integrity cannot seek remedy of specific performance.

The point is in Walsh v.Lonsdale claimant sued to nullify Common law distress and damages on the ground that both parties did not have valid lease agreement. By considering, facts in the issue, court determined to award specific performance to create equitable lease agreement between them upon the maxim that equity looks to intent rather than form, and equity looks on as done that which ought to be done. By considering equitable lease, claim was rejected.

Specific performance, as an equitable remedy, awarded where appropriate remedy at law must be inadequate in other words, to provide complete remedy. In the case of Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v. Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd plaintiff leased out its unit of shop to defendant for a period of 35 years. As a contractual clause, defendant was expected to open that shop for trading during regular business hours. Due to loss incurred by the defendant they wanted to the shut down the operations at the shop in issue.

Although plaintiff sued defendant on damages and specific performance the lower court judge found in favour of damages but rejected awarding of specific performance. Later, the court of appeal also held same position because order of specific performance would be inequitable when considering the background of both parties (unfair bargaining positions of both parties i.e. uncertainty of contractual terms, financial and non-financial hardship, and other contextual hardships deemed fits etc.) and that may cause higher magnitude of injustice to the defendant and third parties.

Aforementioned judgment determined how the court should manage its discretionary power in determining award of specific performance. The House of Lords observed that plaintiff was automatically entitled to right of damages provided breach of contract is established. However, if the court goes further for specific performance there should be an assurance of rationalization that Common law was not adequate for perfect remedy.

As per the House of Lords, court is not going compel running business which runs at a loss and it needs continuous supervision because it would not be practical . Non-performance of court order causes them to be punished on contempt of court and in that manner forcing someone to carry on a business against his wish is unfair.

In breach of contractual obligation in sales of lands or chattels, commonly claimant would be granted damages in Common law. Therefore, to obtain specific performance, plaintiffs have to prove that either sales of parcel of land or chattels should be unique, come up intrinsic value, irreplaceable and not substitutes. In addition, if the plaintiff has either difficulty of having those things due to unitability at the market or higher prices .

In De Francesco v. Barnum (1890), inability of application of specific performance can be observed in agreement of services such as agreement of providing innovative creations, art works etc. it is deemed that someone to be compelled in performing something cannot be done under a threat of punishments of court and only pecuniary damages are awarded under common law .Otherwise, court only provide damages in Common law.

Conclusions

The established practice of awarding specific performance is based on sound reasoning and it may have dramatic impact on parties. Based on principles of equity and precedents cases outline those practices. Awarding damages is not a rule of thumb for every breach of enforceable agreement. However, specific performance is not primary remedy in law but together those help to make justice more perfect and adjust according to context forging inflexibilities of common law. by considering above arguments specific performance is an exceptional in Common law.

References

1. CILEx Law School Limited, 2018. Chapter 2: Equitable Remedies: Specific Performance. In: Bedforsd: CILEx Law School Limited, pp. 19-22.
2. Dagan, H. & Heller, M. A., 2020. Specific Performance. Columbia Public Law Research Paper No 14-674.
3. Hepburn, S., 2001. Principles of Equity and Trusts Law. 2nd ed. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
4. Hudson, A., 2005 . Equity & Trust. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
5. Jayaratnam, N., 1988. Principles of Equity (Block I & II). Colombo: The Open University of Sri Lanka.
6. Shavell, S., 2005. Specific Performance versus Damages for Breach of Contract. In: The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper. Cambridge: Harvard Law School, pp. 1-37.

PlayNation Vs Velex Litigation

PlayNation served Velex with a complaint that stated Velex was infringing on PlayNation’s trademark. The district court ruled in PlayNation’s favor. The court employed seven factors when making the determination: the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; the similarity of the marks; the similarity of the products the marks represent; the similarity of the parties’ retail outlets and customers; the similarity of advertising media; the defendant’s intent; and actual confusion.

The court ruled that the use of the trademark by PlayNation is strong, descriptive and suggestive because the mark is suggestive it enjoys greater protection. The mark is also incontestable, presumed to be at least descriptive with secondary meaning, which supports the belief of the strength of the mark. On this point, the court sided with PlayNation.

The court believes that the two marks are exceedingly similar, from the wording to the art and size of the gorilla used in the mark. Velex argued that their mark reads ‘Gorilla Gym’, while PlayNation reads ‘Gorilla Playsets’ the difference in the word was not enough for the court to find any significant difference in the marks, therefore, the courts’ decision on this point was not incorrect and found in favor for PlayNation.

Both PlayNation and Velex sell a variety of playthings geared toward children. PlayNation selling outdoor and Velex selling indoor products. Using the metric the court has employed, the public can attribute both products to a single source, as a result, it supports the district court’s findings.

There are several parallels in the retail outlets each company uses to distribute their product. Velex attempted to argue that because PlayNation sells through dealers the retail outlets between the two companies are dissimilar, however, the court still found that there is a likelihood of confusion still exists as well both companies used similar methods of advertising.

PlayNation provided evidence of consumers who purchased a PlayNation set but contacted Velex for servicing and customer support needs. Although PlayNation did not provide many instances of this the court ruled that the instances of confusion that occurred are the most significant.

Velex, in the appeal, attempted to introduce new factors one that Velex held a valid federal trademark that covered the products and secondly there was no survey evidence suggesting consumer confusion. The court declined to agree or consider either point.

Velex’s trademark was canceled and they were ordered to pay damages to PlayNation. The district court ruled that Velex willfully infringed on PlayNation’s trademark because of the continued sale of its products after the complaint was filed.

Of the two elements required to cancel the trademark, PlayNation was able to show both. Therefore, the district court did not abuse power in its ruling to cancel Velex’s trademark. There has been abundant evidence demonstrating the infringement on PlayNation’s trademark by Velex.

The damages Velex was ordered to pay was vacated and remanded. There was an abuse of discretion by the district court.

The final ruling in the appeal affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Velex was not able to regain their trademark, Velex is no longer required to pay damages to PlayNation.