Author Topic: Voice ID experts  (Read 24083 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #75 on: May 21, 2013, 03:36:40 PM »
RJ, maybe Owens in on the Category A list under a W#. Reich and the Hs were.

Were they listed by name in another category?

I think the most likely reason Owen has become an issue would be that he is the only witness who has asked the defense to pay for his deposition.

I'm puzzled that the defense offers to pay anything. Sitting for deposition would be part of Owen's job as a state witness.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #76 on: May 21, 2013, 03:55:00 PM »
Were they listed by name in another category?

I never found their witness number listed in a supplemental discovery document, but I can't find copies of the state's 14th and 15th supplemental discovery filings, so they could be listed there.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #77 on: May 21, 2013, 03:59:45 PM »
That response didn't quite address the question, but as far as I know, they weren't listed either by name or number before. Owens was listed by name as a Category C witness in the original discovery document. Perhaps he was upgraded in the mysterious 14th or 15th supplements.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 04:01:16 PM by MJW »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #78 on: May 21, 2013, 04:44:39 PM »
I'm puzzled that the defense offers to pay anything. Sitting for deposition would be part of Owen's job as a state witness.

Opposition pays to depose the other side's expert witnesses.  I do expert work, it's part of my living.  The guy that hired me pays for my investigation, analysis, opinions, and any report.  When I am deposed by opposition, THEY pay for my time and any travel and living expenses.  They get my report "for free" (tagalong with the guy who hired me) but they don't get to question me for free.  I think the basis is that opposition is hostile, and while they have a right to put me on the hot seat, I have a right to be paid for my time.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #79 on: May 21, 2013, 08:16:53 PM »
Owen said in the Sentinel
“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else”
The two other sets of state experts claim that there was a mixture of cries/calls from Martin and Zimmerman.  Even under perfect recording and non-stressful conditions, Owen should not expect a match with a mixture of voices.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #80 on: May 24, 2013, 01:06:11 PM »
I don;t think this one showed up at the GZLegal site.  Link below is to the 18th Circuit page.

22 May Defendant Reply to State Opposition to Evidentiary Hearing

This is the argument in favor of conducting a hearing, and rebuts Bernardo's contention that the technical methods e used by Reich and H&H pass the Frye test.  The reply includes discussion of Owen.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #81 on: May 24, 2013, 01:34:46 PM »
Excellent job by O'Mara and West.  I wonder who their expert is.  I can't believe that Nelson could disregard this and not have a Frye hearing.  Interesting that they are supposed to depose Reich today.  I guess he doesn't demand a fee like Owen's.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 01:36:29 PM by RickyJim »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #82 on: May 24, 2013, 01:58:57 PM »
The reply is very good. I don't see how Judge Nelson could let the voice ID evidence in without holding a Frye hearing, but she's made some other rulings I can't quite understand.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #83 on: May 24, 2013, 02:06:49 PM »
I don't see how Judge Nelson could let the voice ID evidence in without holding a Frye hearing, but she's made some other rulings I can't quite understand.

I don't think Nelson has done anything as egregious as denying the Frye hearing would be.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #84 on: May 24, 2013, 02:07:41 PM »
The reply is very good. I don't see how Judge Nelson could let the voice ID evidence in without holding a Frye hearing, but she's made some other rulings I can't quite understand.

I predicted some time ago that she'd have a hearing, then let the experts testify.  The basis will be that the jury is able to sort out an conflicting conclusions.  The state's case, without voice experts, is exceptionally weak.  By now, Nelson probably has a sense of just how vulnerable the state's case is, and she'll be throwing lifelines as quick as Bernardo gives half a reason to do so.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #85 on: May 24, 2013, 02:20:21 PM »
The reply includes discussion of Owen.

Not Primeau, nor any other expert but Owen and the three who have made reports.

The reply also cites a Florida Supreme court case, Ramirez v. State, 810 So. 2d 836 (2001). The decision holds that application to the 'type of evidence' specific to the case is subject to the Frye test, not only the 'underlying principle'.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #86 on: May 24, 2013, 03:13:51 PM »
I predicted some time ago that she'd have a hearing, then let the experts testify.  The basis will be that the jury is able to sort out an conflicting conclusions.  The state's case, without voice experts, is exceptionally weak.  By now, Nelson probably has a sense of just how vulnerable the state's case is, and she'll be throwing lifelines as quick as Bernardo gives half a reason to do so.

I could be wrong, but if she lets it in, I think a conviction would be reversed on appeal. The Frye requirement rejects the view that it's completely up to the jury to weigh scientific evidence.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #87 on: May 24, 2013, 03:20:04 PM »
I could be wrong, but if she lets it in, I think a conviction would be reversed on appeal. The Frye requirement rejects the view that it's completely up to the jury to weigh scientific evidence.

But the Florida Jury instructions include an admonition to the jury that it is free to accept all, part, or none of what the expert says.  In that sense, an expert is no more exalted than any other witness.

It would be an interesting question on appeal, assuming a conviction.  I think Nelson has a sense that this is a turkey of a case for the prosecution, and that gives her more latitude to err in the state's favor during the trial.  If there is an aquittal, errors in the state's favor will not be the basis for appeal.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #88 on: May 24, 2013, 03:32:05 PM »
But the Florida Jury instructions include an admonition to the jury that it is free to accept all, part, or none of what the expert says.  In that sense, an expert is no more exalted than any other witness.

It would be an interesting question on appeal, assuming a conviction.  I think Nelson has a sense that this is a turkey of a case for the prosecution, and that gives her more latitude to err in the state's favor during the trial.  If there is an aquittal, errors in the state's favor will not be the basis for appeal.

There have been a number of Florida cases where the appellate court reversed because scientific evidence didn't meet the Frye test -- Ramirez v. State, 651 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1995), for one. If the jury were entrusted to weigh that evidence, there would be no Frye test and no reversals based on it.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #89 on: May 24, 2013, 03:45:55 PM »
There have been a number of Florida cases where the appellate court reversed because scientific evidence didn't meet the Frye test -- Ramirez v. State, 651 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1995), for one. If the jury were entrusted to weigh that evidence, there would be no Frye test and no reversals based on it.

I don't know if there are any cases where that error is held to be harmless.

But my point was a different one, and it went to how I speculate Nelson will rationalize allowing the testimony.  I don't think the testimony is admissible as expert testimony, just on its face and without going through the sophisticated wordplay that lawyers and judges love so much.  The experts can't reach a reliable conclusion, therefore their opinion isn;t helpful to the layman.  That the experts disagree, using the same methods! is rock solid evidence of inability to reach a reliable conclusion on this evidence.

As I mentioned above, I don't know, at the conclusion of the case, that the error matters.  It certainly does not matter if Zimmerman is acquitted.  Which introduces my other thought, that Nelson expects an acquittal, and so is unconcerned about making errors that cut against the defense.  The defense wins the trial, there is no appeal on having admitted the state's unqualified expert opinions.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking