State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) > Witness Discussion

Audio Experts

(1/4) > >>

AJ:
Not sure if this should be filed in "Court Matters," but since there isn't a thread on the audio experts in "Witness Discussion" I figured I might as well make one.

I'm confused, and it could be because of the way the witness list from the State hasn't been submitted in a complete list in a while.

Question 1: What are they categorized as by the State?
Question 2: Can they testify based on the answer to Q1?

Q1:
In this document, they're listed as Category B witnesses. I could have sworn there was a newer witness list in one of the filings that had an updated witness list from them, but I've yet to find it. I thought I saw them listed as "Category C" once before.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/CJC3rdFlCScan20120515084012.pdf

Q2:
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/BDFE1551AD291A3F85256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf


--- Quote ---3.220(b)(1)(A):
  a list of the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information that may be relevant to any offense charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be resented
at trial under section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes. The names and addresses of persons listed shall be clearly designated in the following categories:

    (i) Category A. These witnesses shall include (1) eye witnesses, (2) alibi witnesses and rebuttal to alibi witnesses, (3) witnesses who were present when a recorded or unrecorded statement was taken from or made by a defendant or codefendant, which shall be separately identified within this category, (4) investigating officers, (5) witnesses known by the prosecutor to have any material information that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged, (6) child hearsay witnesses, and (7) expert witnesses who have not provided a written report and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify.

    (ii) Category B. All witnesses not listed in either Category A or Category C

    (iii) Category C. All witnesses who performed only ministerial functions or whom the prosecutor does not intend to call at trial and whose involvement with and knowledge of the case is fully set out in a police report or other statement furnished to the defense;

--- End quote ---

Based on this, I had come to the conclusion that in order for Ed Primeau and Tom Owens to testify they would need to be classified as "Category A." Where am I going wrong? Were they changed to "Category A" somewhere along the way? If I am understanding 3.220 and the witness list correctly, then why would Mr. O'Mara want an extended hearing to say someone can't testify when they shouldn't be able to testify anyway (I've considered CYA, but I'm not sure how viable of a reason that would be)?

MJW:

--- Quote from: AJ on May 06, 2013, 06:57:22 PM ---Based on this, I had come to the conclusion that in order for Ed Primeau and Tom Owens to testify they would need to be classified as "Category A." Where am I going wrong? Were they changed to "Category A" somewhere along the way? If I am understanding 3.220 and the witness list correctly, then why would Mr. O'Mara want an extended hearing to say someone can't testify when they shouldn't be able to testify anyway (I've considered CYA, but I'm not sure how viable of a reason that would be)?

--- End quote ---

I don't think you are going wrong. I, too, am confused as to why the state hasn't listed any expert witnesses in category A.

RickyJim:
Do we necessarily know about all emendations that state has made to their witness list?

leftwig:
Is my memory correct that Cat A witnesses must be available to opposing counsel for depositions and in my interpretation, Cat B expert witnesses would only be called to rebut other experts? 

cboldt:

--- Quote from: AJ on May 06, 2013, 06:57:22 PM ---Based on this, I had come to the conclusion that in order for Ed Primeau and Tom Owens to testify they would need to be classified as "Category A." Where am I going wrong? Were they changed to "Category A" somewhere along the way? If I am understanding 3.220 and the witness list correctly, then why would Mr. O'Mara want an extended hearing to say someone can't testify when they shouldn't be able to testify anyway (I've considered CYA, but I'm not sure how viable of a reason that would be)?

--- End quote ---

I'm sure I've incorrectly said they were listed as Category C witnesses, but I was relying on memory.  No big deal, the point was that the state initially indicated that it did not intend to call Owens or Primeau.

My hunch is that the still do not plan to call either of those two, and that if the state has an expert or two, it is somebody other that Owens and Primeau.  Owens and Primeau are tainted by their previous remarks to the press, and also by their own remarks.  Owens is 'self-disqualifying' if you follow his prescription that describes the criteria necesssarily precedent to reaching a conclusion.  Anyway, neither Owens nor Primeau was a state witness at the start, and I doubt the state has decided to reverse itself and adopt them as experts.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version