Defense Witness Research Articles

Analysis of the Strength of Evidence of Witness a De-Charge Against the Judge's Decision Regarding the Release of the Defendant in a Tax Crime (Study of Decision Number 97/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Pdg)

This research examines the strategic significance of defense witnesses in impacting judicial rulings in cases of tax offenses, as illustrated in Decision Number 97/Pid Sus/2023/PN Pdg. A defense witness is a witness enlisted by the accused to undermine or challenge the allegations put forth by the prosecution to lessen or acquit the accused from legal liabilities. In this particular instance, the defense witness delivered pivotal testimony indicating that a third party had settled the tax in question unbeknownst to the defendant. Such testimony played a critical role in the judicial deliberations, convincing the judge to establish that the essential requirements of the charges were not fulfilled, resulting in the defendant's total clearance. This examination reveals that the testimonial influence of defense witnesses carries substantial weight in the adjudicatory process, particularly in intricate scenarios like tax offenses, where robust and credible evidence holds utmost importance. The ruling of the judge to clear the accused stemmed from the non-fulfillment of the requisites causing financial loss to the state, as stipulated in Article 191 Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, the findings of this research affirm the vital and strategic function of defense witnesses in shaping the ultimate resolution of a criminal lawsuit, especially within tax legislation necessitating thorough and impartial scrutiny of evidence.

The Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Revelations: Implications for the Ukraine-Russia War and Relations

Abstract This study analyzes revelations from the trial and investigation in Ukraine concerning the mass killing that took place in Kyiv on 20 February 2014. This Maidan massacre of protesters and police led to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government and ultimately to the Russian annexation of Crimea, the civil war and Russian military interventions in Donbas, and the Ukraine-Russia and West-Russia conflicts which Russia escalated by illegally invading Ukraine in 2022. The absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts pointed unequivocally to the fact that the Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings. To date, however, due to the political sensitivity of these findings and cover-up, no one has been convicted for this massacre. The article discusses the implications of these revelations for the Ukraine-Russia war and the future of Russian-Ukrainian relations.

Implementation of the Provisions of International Acts on the Interrogation of Defense Witnesses in Court in Russian Law

Problem statement. The right to a fair trial within a reasonable time by an independent, impartial and competent court, in compliance with the fundamental principles of criminal proceedings established by international treaties and national legal acts, is pivotal in the legal status of the individual. As judicial practice shows, in criminal proceedings, the implementation of this right largely depends on individual judicial regulation when deciding on satisfaction/refusal to satisfy the request for questioning in court of a defense witness. The significance of the testimony of a witness confirming the defendant’s alibi or other circumstances testifying to his innocence or the presence of mitigating circumstances actualizes theoretical and applied (based on the analysis of judicial practice) studies devoted to the interrogation of a defense witness during the judicial investigation of a criminal case. Purpose of the work: to identify methodological and organizational and legal problems of summoning and questioning a witness at a court session, to determine the role and aisles of individual judicial regulation when making a decision on a petition for summoning a witness submitted by the defense party. Results. The importance of questioning a defense witness at a court hearing to ensure its publicity, immediacy and verbality is obvious. The interrogation also ensures the proper procedural regime of proof and the operation of the principles of adversarial, presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to defense. Recommendations and other provisions of judicial bodies regarding the summoning and interrogation of witnesses should be evaluated on the basis of the principles of justice enshrined in Russian law, while individual judicial regulation in resolving a specific petition for summoning a witness should be formed on the basis of recognition of the significance of the testimony of this participant, their possible impact on the outcome of the trial, and also provided, when necessary, technical capabilities of video conferencing and web conferencing.

УЧАСТИЕ ОБВИНЯЕМОГО В СУДЕБНОМ РАЗБИРАТЕЛЬСТВЕ

In the trial, the accused is a participant on the part of the defense, who has all the rights of a party in the process and has the right to participate in the study of all the evidence presented by the participants in the trial during the investigation of the circumstances of the case. In carrying out his defense, the accused can not only actively participate in the trial, but also take a passive position. On the other hand, his testimony is evidence in a criminal case, including an accusatory one. In this case, "the evidence base of the prosecution can be formed with the participation of the accused himself," while the participation of the accused in the study and presentation of evidence should not be made dependent on his consent or refusal to testify. In foreign practice, in particular in the criminal proceedings of England and the USA, the testimony of the accused is a kind of testimony that has certain specifics. This is manifested in the following. In the United States, the accused can: refuse to testify; act as a defense witness without an oath (in this case, his testimony is not given the force of evidence); testify under oath. In England, the accused must either remain silent (refuse to testify), or act as a witness. Both in England and in the USA, if the accused decides to testify, he is interrogated as a witness under oath, may be cross-examined when the prosecution, the court will be able to ask questions incriminating the accused of committing a crime, he is also responsible for giving false testimony.

AİHM VE AYM İÇTİHATLARI DOĞRULTUSUNDA TANIK SORGULAMA HAKKI

The right to question witnesses is regulated in subparagraph d of paragraph 3 of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to this regulation, the accused has the right to interrogate or have the witnesses of the claim and defense interrogated. As a rule, the interrogation of allegation and defense witnesses is done in front of the court. However, in some exceptional cases, witnesses cannot or do not appear before the court. In such cases, the right of the accused to a fair trial may be violated.
 The European Court of Human Rights and, accordingly, the Constitutional Court have set certain criteria as to whether the defendant's right to a fair trial is violated if the witnesses are not questioned in front of the court. In this study, the right to question witnesses is tried to be explained in the context of the decisions given by the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court and in line with the criteria determined.

Undesirable and unreturnable individuals: Rethinking the International Criminal Court’s human rights obligations towards detained witnesses

AbstractIn March 2011, three defence witnesses, who were in detention in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), were transferred to The Hague to testify before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the trial against Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. Once the witnesses had testified, they were returned to the DRC, even though they feared for their lives, and had lodged an asylum request with the Dutch authorities.This article argues that the ICC is bound by the principle of non-refoulement: a prohibition on returning or extraditing an individual to a country where there is a real risk, or substantial grounds, they might be subjected to torture or other human rights violations. Like other individuals, ICC witnesses should enjoy protection from refoulement. This conclusion is based on analysis of the relationship between the ICC and international human rights law through two different approaches. The ICC, as an international organization, is obliged to respect the principle of non-refoulement but additional obligations stem from the Rome Statute. Article 21(3) obligates the ICC to interpret and apply the law governing protective measures in conformity with ‘internationally recognized’ human rights. In concluding that the ICC has not fully acknowledged the extent of witnesses’ rights, this article proposes strengthening the role of the witness protection programme to address the evident deficiencies in the ICC’s current practice.

Vascular Surgeons as Expert Witnesses in Malpractice Litigation

This study investigates the role of vascular surgeons as expert witnesses in United States' malpractice claims. We reviewed the Westlaw database from 1999 through 2014 using the search terms "vascular" and "surgeon". Case defendant, plaintiff, allegation, and verdict were compiled. Surgeon expert witness demographic data including age, practice duration, scholarly impact (H-index) and practice setting were reviewed using faculty websites, state licensing boards, and Scopus database. A total of 785 cases were identified, Three-hundred seventy-seven with a vascular surgeon as the plaintiff or defense expert witness. Vascular surgeons were defense experts in One-hundred thirty one (34.75%) cases, plaintiff experts in One-hundred eighteen (31.3%), both plaintiff and defense experts in Ninty six (25.46%), or unspecified in Thiry two cases (8.29%). Two-hunder eighty three individual expert witnesses were identified. Vascular surgeon experts who testified 4 or more times were likely to be plaintiff experts (32.5% versus 18.7%, P <0.05). Mean years of practice (23.5 versus 24.2, P=0.10) between plaintiff and defense experts was comparable. Plaintiff experts were more likely in non-academic practice (64.4% versus 52.5%, P <0.05) with lower scholarly impact (H-index 12.8 versus 16.7, P <0.05). A small percentage of vascular surgeons were experts in multiple cases, especially as plaintiff witnesses. Vascular surgeons as plaintiff's witnesses have similar years of age, work less in an academics, and have lower scholarly impact than defense witnesses. While national organizations provide guidelines defining expert witness qualifications, the required credentials vary by State. Development of minimum qualifications nationally may improve consistency in expert credentialing and lead to more ethical trial representation.

The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigations

The massacre of the protesters and the police in Ukraine during the “Euromaidan” mass protests on February 18-20, 2014 contributed to the overthrow of the Ukrainian government and ultimately to a start of the civil war in Donbas, Russian military interventions in Crimea and Donbas, the Russian annexation of Crimea and an international conflict between the West and Russia. The research question is as follows: What does evidence made public by the Maidan massacre trials and the Ukrainian government investigations reveal about which of the parties of the conflict was involved in this mass killing? This paper analyzes several hundred hours of video recordings of the Maidan massacre trials, over 2,500 court decisions, testimonies of wounded protesters, relatives of the killed protesters, prosecution and defense witnesses, and top officials of the Yanukovych and Maidan governments, results of forensic ballistic and medical examinations and investigative experiments, and videos and photos of the Maidan massacre made public during the trial. It includes several online video appendixes containing the data. The Maidan massacre trials and investigations have revealed various evidence that four killed and several dozen wounded policemen and at least the absolute majority of 49 killed and 157 wounded Maidan protesters were massacred on February 20, 2014 by snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings and areas. Such evidence includes testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded protesters, several dozens of prosecution witnesses, dozens of defense witnesses, and 14 self-admitted members of Maidan snipers groups. Videos presented at the trial showed that times of shooting of the absolute majority of protesters did not coincide with times of shooting by the Berkut policemen, who were charged with their massacre. Forensic medical examinations determined that the overwhelming majority of the protesters were shot from steep directions from the sides or the back. Initial ballistic examinations did not match bullets extracted from the bodies of killed and wounded protesters to the Berkut Kalashnikovs. Forensic examinations of the bullet holes by the government experts for the Maidan massacre trial suggested that Berkut policemen were shooting in the Hotel Ukraina snipers above the Maidan protesters and in trees and poles. The analysis shows cover-up and stonewalling of the investigations and trials by the Maidan governments and the far right. The prosecution denied that there were any snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings. Not a single person is convicted or under arrest for the massacre of the protesters and the police almost seven years after one of the most documented mass killings in history.

The Taking of Evidence in a Fair Trial in the Light of the ECtHR – Especially the Protection of Confidential Information or State Secrets as Evidence

This article deals with the requirements of a fair trial while taking evidence in court. In particular, it outlines the content and scope of rights when examining defence or prosecution witnesses, and procuring documentary or other material evidence. Furthermore, it explores the extent to which confidential information or state secrets may be protected during the taking of evidence in court, and the limits placed on the application of such protective measures by the defence’s right to a fair trial.

Empowering the Exclusionary Rule: Using suppression motion data to improve police searches and searches in the United States

The Exclusionary Rule (i.e. a U.S. Supreme Court created rule that bars evidence, obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights, from being used by the prosecution at trial) remains a highly controversial measure, with questionable ability to deter unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, many decades since its enactment, allegations of unconstitutional stops, searches, and seizures continue to plague police departments across the United States. Examining these allegations is a critical step toward assessing police compliance with constitutional mandates and developing needed corrective measures. Content analyses of suppression motions (brought by criminal defendants to exclude incriminating evidence from trial based on allegations of unconstitutional police action) and hearings, conducted in an urban U.S. city, demonstrate how these data provide unique information from multiple perspectives (e.g. defense, prosecution, court, lay and police witnesses)—involving pretexual stops, defendant targeting, and over-reaching searches—that may be used to develop police training protocols, support early intervention systems, and improve local patterns of officer behavior. In this way, data generated by the Exclusionary Rule may not only empower the rule to achieve its intended purpose of enforcing constitutional protections in the United States, but also provide a framework of police accountability (by demonstrating the utility of court data) that may improve police searches and seizures in other countries.

Dialect on trial: use of African American Vernacular English influences juror appraisals

ABSTRACTWe investigated the effect of dialect and race on juror decision making. Mock jurors read a summary of an ambiguous criminal case, which included audio of a defense witness (Study 1) or defendant (Study 2). Both speaker dialect [General American English (GAE)/African American Vernacular English (AAVE)] and race (White/Black) were crossed; Study 2 also included three levels of case (Ambiguous/Pro-Prosecution/Pro-Defense) to evaluate any effects of evidentiary context. In both studies, jurors who listened to the AAVE recording found the AAVE-speaking witness to be less professional and less educated than their GAE-speaking counterparts. Interestingly, jurors in Study 2 who heard the defendant use GAE were more likely to find him guilty and found him less credible when the case favored the prosecution, hinting that ingroup biases such as the black sheep effect may also play a role in perceptions of dialect. Secondary analyses found that AAVE predicted more negative overall evaluations of the speaker, and these negative evaluations were associated with an increase in guilty verdicts. Together, these findings suggest that dialect plays an under-investigated role in the courtroom, and that bias against AAVE negatively impacts juror appraisals of its speakers and can potentially influence juror decision making.

Using Hawkins's Surround, Field, and Frames Concepts to Understand the Complexities of Special Measures Decision Making in Crown Court Trials

Adjustments to criminal trial processes, called special measures, are available to vulnerable and/or intimidated witnesses giving evidence. Findings from interviews with 13 criminal practitioners suggest that there are notable variations in the uptake of special measures between prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses, and the accused in Crown Court trials. These extend beyond any inequality in their legal provision. This article uses Keith Hawkins's conceptual framework of surround, field, and frames as a heuristic device to understand this differential uptake. The framework delineates the various factors – including the socio‐political, organizational, and attitudinal – which can influence decision‐making practices in relation to special measures. In doing so, this article demonstrates two things. First, that changing the legal provision is unlikely to effect much change in practice, absent specific complementary changes to the field. Second, that Hawkins's framework has potential as an explanatory device in decision‐making contexts outside his own health and safety setting.

A Comparison of Defense and Plaintiff Expert Witnesses in Orthopaedic Surgery Malpractice Litigation.

According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Standards of Professionalism, the responsible testimony of expert witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits is important to the public interest. However, these expert witnesses are recruited and compensated without established standards, and their testimony can potentially sway court opinion, with substantial consequences. The objective of this study was to characterize defense and plaintiff expert orthopaedic surgeon witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice litigation. Utilizing the WestlawNext legal database, defense and plaintiff expert witnesses involved in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits from 2013 to 2017 were identified. Each witness's subspecialty, mean years of experience, involvement in academic or private practice, fellowship training, and scholarly impact, as measured by the Hirsch index (h-index), were determined through a query of professional profiles, the Scopus database, and a PubMed search. Statistical comparisons were made for each parameter among defense and plaintiff expert witnesses. Between 2013 and 2017, 306 expert medical witnesses for orthopaedic cases were identified; 174 (56.9%) testified on behalf of the plaintiff, and 132 (43.1%) testified on behalf of the defense. Orthopaedic surgeons who identified themselves as general orthopaedists comprised the largest share of expert witnesses on both the plaintiff (n = 61) and defense (n = 25) sides. The plaintiff witnesses averaged 36 years of experience versus 31 years for the defense witnesses (p < 0.001); 26% of the plaintiff witnesses held an academic position versus 43% of the defense witnesses (p = 0.013). Defense witnesses exhibited a higher proportion of fellowship training in comparison to plaintiff expert witnesses (80.5% versus 64.5%, respectively, p = 0.003). The h-index for the plaintiff group was 6.6 versus 9.1 for the defense group (p = 0.04). Two witnesses testified for both the plaintiff and defense sides. Defense expert witnesses held higher rates of academic appointments and exhibited greater scholarly impact than their plaintiff counterparts, with both sides averaging >30 years of experience. These data collectively show that there are differences in characteristics between plaintiff and defense witnesses. Additional study is needed to illuminate the etiology of these differences.

Creepy-ass cracker in post-racial America: Don West’s examination of Rachel Jeantel in the George Zimmerman murder trial

Abstract This article examines interactions between defense attorney Don West and witness Rachel Jeantel in the 2013 State of Florida v. George Zimmerman trial following the murder of Trayvon Martin. The focus of analysis is how the defense constitutes the term creepy-ass cracker as evidence of violence and aggression on behalf of Trayvon Martin. Their argument is located within an ideological framework of a post-racial American society wherein the defense claims colorblindness (Bonilla-Silva 2014) for their client George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin’s observation of Zimmerman’s whiteness, as indexed by the word cracker, is positioned as evidence of a culture and an individual with inherently violent, racially motivated intentions. The article examines interactional moments during the defense’s questioning of Rachel Jeantel wherein creepy-ass cracker is positioned as immoral within a post-racial ideological framework, and evidence of racism toward white people. Don West’s use of pauses, hyper-articulated Standard American English, and emblematic deictic terms discursively and linguistically segregate Martin’s and Jeantel’s community from the hegemonic white practices of the courtroom. West’s attempts to assert symbolic control over the semantic meaning of creepy-ass cracker reflect the relative unmarkedness of Standard American English and whiteness in contemporary United States judicial systems and society.

ICC Witnesses and Acquitted Suspects Seeking Asylum in the Netherlands: An Overview of the Jurisdictional Battles between the ICC and Its Host State

By way of side-effect, and to an extent that had not been foreseen, the Netherlands is confronted with asylum applications from persons involved in proceedings before the International Criminal Court (ICC), which it hosts in The Hague. These applications have led to an unprecedented body of case law from both the ICC and the Netherlands judiciary regarding the protection of the applicants. Central to this case law is the question of allocation of responsibility for the protection of the persons involved, particularly with respect to the prohibition of refoulement. This article provides an analysis of the relevant cases regarding asylum applications from persons involved in ICC proceedings, namely, detained defence witnesses, voluntary witnesses for the prosecution, and acquitted suspects. It particularly examines and evaluates the jurisdictional delimitations made by the ICC and the Dutch courts, and the fundamental questions of refugee and human rights protection that are addressed in these cases. With regard to domestic case law, the focus will be on the way in which key provisions of international refugee law - such as the application of articles 1A, 1D and 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - and the safe third country concept are applied. The article concludes that the basic rights of former ICC witnesses and suspects are not always addressed adequately and appear to be lost in the divide created by the jurisdictional battles between the ICC and its host state.

The role and reliability of the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised in U.S. sexually violent predator evaluations: A case law survey.

The civil commitment of offenders as sexually violent predators (SVPs) is a highly contentious area of U.S. mental health law. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is frequently used in mental health evaluations in these cases to aid legal decision making. Although generally perceived to be a useful assessment tool in applied settings, recent research has raised questions about the reliability of PCL-R scores in SVP cases. In this report, we review the use of the PCL-R in SVP trials identified as part of a larger project investigating its role in U.S. case law. After presenting data on how the PCL-R is used in SVP cases, we examine the reliability of scores reported in these cases. We located 214 cases involving the PCL-R, 88 of which included an actual score and 29 of which included multiple scores. In the 29 cases with multiple scores, the intraclass correlation coefficient for a single evaluator for the PCL-R scores was only .58, and only 41.4% of the difference scores were within 1 standard error of measurement unit. The average score reported by prosecution experts was significantly higher than the average score reported by defense-retained experts, and prosecution experts reported PCL-R scores of 30 or above in nearly 50% of the cases, compared with less than 10% of the cases for defense witnesses (κ = .29). In conjunction with other recently published findings demonstrating the unreliability of PCL-R scores in applied settings, our results raise questions as to whether this instrument should be admitted into SVP proceedings.

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by nonmedical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and the potential professional repercussions, however, have been controversial in the medical community. The objective of the present analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation. Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the WestlawNext legal database. Data pertaining to duration of a surgeon's practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h index), practice setting, and the frequency with which a surgeon testifies were obtained for these expert witnesses from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards. Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs 33.2 for defense witnesses, p = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h index = 8.76 vs 5.46, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, p < 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times than those testifying on behalf of defendants (20.4% vs 12.6%). Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Experts for plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.

When International Criminal Justice Collides with Principles of International Protection: Assessing the Consequences of ICC Witnesses Seeking Asylum, Defendants Being Acquitted, and Convicted Being Released

AbstractIn 2011 three Congolese ICC defence witnesses applied for asylum in the Netherlands. A decision has not yet been made. This article argues that three outcomes of their procedures are most likely: (i) an asylum permit is granted, (ii) a permit is denied, or (iii) the applicants are excluded from refugee protection on the basis of Article 1(f)(a). All scenarios would have serious practical and political consequences for the ICC, the Netherlands, and the DRC. There is a limited, but real, chance that future defence witnesses will also apply for asylum. This mere threat might already seriously hamper future co-operation between the ICC and states parties. More practical and political dilemmas stemming from a lack of harmonization between international criminal law and principles of international protection lie ahead, since a coherent scheme on how to deal with ICC defendants whose case has been rejected in the pre-trial phase, who have been acquitted, or who have served their sentence and cannot be refouled to their country of origin has thus far not been realized. As it stands the international community does not have an answer to this fundamental system error yet.

Melting Hearts of Stone: Clarence Darrow and the Sweet Trials

Detroit seemed to Dr. Ossian Sweet a good place to launch a medical practice in 1921. Ossian Sweet understood racial violence all too well. Growing up in Orlando, Ossian had witnessed a large crowd of whites running a black boy down a dusty road. Seeing racial hatred in its ugliest forms instilled in Sweet a deep race consciousness and determination not to let bigotry prevent him from achieving his own personal goals. He decided to move into his new home at 2905 Garland, whatever the risks to him and his family. Clarence Darrow associated with many causes over his long career, but the most constant of all was that of black Americans. From his early identification with the sacred cause of abolition to his charitable support of the NAACP, Darrow always stood out as one of the Negro's best white friends. On the evening of September 9, with the occupants of the Sweet house huddled together a crowd gathered, then increased, stones came through the window and shots came from the house and two members of the crowd lay on the ground wounded, one mortally. After presenting his seventy witnesses, the Prosecutor would tell the jury that the case was simple: Leon Breiner, peacefully chatting with his neighbor at his doorstep enjoying his God-given and inalienable right to live, is shot through the back from ambush. You can't make anything out of these facts but cold-blooded murder.... Darrow wanted the Sweet trial to be about more than the events of one night in Detroit. He wanted the trial to be about a history of black suffering in America. Clarence Darrow wanted the jury to understand the fear felt inside 2905 Garland on the night of September 9. Through a series of defense witnesses, Darrow presented a very different version of the scene. This essay details the trial that resulted first in a hung jury and mistrial. After the second trial resulted in a verdict of not guilty Darrow told the press, The verdict meant simply that the doctrine that a man's house is his castle applied to the black man as well as the white man. If not the first time that a white jury had vindicated this principle, it was the first time that ever came to my notice.

Beyond Diversity: Women, Scarification, and Yoruba Identity

On 18 March 1898 Okolu, an Ijesa man, accused Otunba of Italemo ward, Ondo of seizing and enslaving his sister Osun and his niece. Both mother and daughter, enslaved by the Ikale in 1894, had fled from their master in 1895, but as they headed toward Ilesa, the accused seized them. Osun claimed the accused forced her to become his wife, “hoe a farm,” and marked her daughter's face with one deep, bold line on each cheek. Otunba denied the slavery charge, claiming he only “rescued [Osun] from Soba who was taking her away [and] took her for wife.” Itoyimaki, a defense witness, supported the claim that Osun was not Otunba's slave. In his decision, Albert Erharhdt, the presiding British Commissioner, freed the captives and ordered the accused to pay a fine of two pounds. In addition to integrating Osun through marriage, the mark conferred on her daughter a standard feature of Ondo identity. Although this case came up late in the nineteenth century, it represents a trend in precolonial Yorubaland whereby marriages and esthetics served the purpose of ethnic incorporation.Studies on the roots of African ethnic identity consciousness have concentrated mostly on the activities of outsiders, usually Euro-American Christian missions, repatriated ex-slaves, and Muslims, whose ideas of nations as geocultural entities were applied to various African groups during the era of the slave trade and, more intensely, under colonialism. For instance, prior to the late nineteenth century, the people now called Yoruba were divided into multiple opposing ethnicities. Ethnic wars displaced millions of people, including about a million Yoruba-speakers deported as slaves to the Americas, Sierra Leone, and the central Sudan, mostly between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries.