June 6th Hearing

[annoyedbeyond]

Acting on his own.  His relationship with the standards working group is simply used to establish his bona fides.

Thanks. I was busy with something when he was being introduced and missed most of it.

[nomatter_nevermind]

I'm thinking one guy is easy to dismiss/ignore, but the whole NIST group is a little more difficult.

The Frye test is whether the method has 'gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.'

[annoyedbeyond]

Mantei admits his whole point of redirecting the redirect is to try and confuse Dr. N?

Dope.

[cboldt]

West asks if an expert said voice ID of this sample is possible, would Nakasone agree.  Nakasone says he would use different terminology.  He would find the (expert's) claim disturbing.  Such ID is not feasible.  A claim to be able to ID the speaker from this sample would probably disturb other scientists as well.

On recross, Mantei tries to get the expert to agree that this sample is okay; that it is acceptable for an expert to opine that the speaker was or was not a certain person, from this sample, using one of the three methods discussed so far in this hearing.

The expert says everybody is entitled to their own opinions.  Expert could have done better by saying his quarrel is with applying the methods to this sample, and reaching a conclusion other than "not enough data to decide."

[nomatter_nevermind]

Expert could have done better by saying his quarrel is with applying the methods to this sample, and reaching a conclusion other than "not enough data to decide."

I don't agree that is better. I would say it's non-responsive, and sounds like the witness is trying to weasel.

[annoyedbeyond]

I don't agree that is better. I would say it's non-responsive, and sounds like the witness is trying to weasel.

Except that cboldt boiled an hour plus of testimony into a single sentence that cuts to the heart of why the defense wanted him on the stand.

[cboldt]

I don't agree that is better. I would say it's non-responsive, and sounds like the witness is trying to weasel.

The answer he gave, agreeing, was a walking back of his previous position.

But, as the expert said, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[RickyJim]

I can't believe that it is that easy to satisfy Frye.  Is the prosecution arguing that anybody using the standard 3 methodologies, more or less, should be allowed to testify? 

[annoyedbeyond]

I can't believe that it is that easy to satisfy Frye.  Is the prosecution arguing that anybody using the standard 3 methodologies, more or less, should be allowed to testify?

As long as they say what the prosecution wants the jury to hear? Absolutely!

[cboldt]

I can't believe that it is that easy to satisfy Frye.  Is the prosecution arguing that anybody using the standard 3 methodologies, more or less, should be allowed to testify?

Yes.  There is no view of the suitablity of the methodology to the task.  It's like using a microscope to view stars.  As long as microscopes are used for (looking at) SOMETHING, then any testimony that involves looking at, using a microscope, is using good science, no matter what is being looked at.

Nakasone's testimony was that none of the methods are suitable to analyze this sample.  The state argues that the methods are all acceptable, none of them produce results with perfect certainty, therefore the opinion of their experts should come in.

Nelson is going to let it in.  She is clueless on the science, and she does not want to cut off what may be the state's only remaining leg.

[annoyedbeyond]

Yes.  There is no view of the suitablity of the methodology to the task.  It's like using a microscope to view stars.  As long as microscopes are used for (looking at) SOMETHING, then any testimony that involves looking at, using a microscope, is using good science, no matter what is being looked at.

Nakasone's testimony was that none of the methods are suitable to analyze this sample.  The state argues that the methods are all acceptable, none of them produce results with perfect certainty, therefore the opinion of their experts should come in.

Nelson is going to let it in.  She is clueless on the science, and she does not want to cut off what may be the state's only remaining leg.

But but but...we were just a few minutes ago reminded exactly what Frye is!

Meh. Of course she's going to let it in. The decision on the Frye test will be exactly like all her other pro-State rulings.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Yes.  There is no view of the suitablity of the methodology to the task.  It's like using a microscope to view stars.  As long as microscopes are used for (looking at) SOMETHING, then any testimony that involves looking at, using a microscope, is using good science, no matter what is being looked at.

That's arguably true under a literal interpretation of the Frye test, as originally worded.

Defendant's Reply to State Opposition to Evidentiary Hearing 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'.

[nomatter_nevermind]

YouTube video of the first hour and a half of the 6/6/13 hearing.

[nomatter_nevermind]

So did she say those witnesses can't be anonymous or what?  Since she denied a motion we don't know the details of, I am confused.

My impression is that she will interview the witnesses in chambers, before ruling.

'At this time the motion is denied' (6/6/13 hearing, 21:41).

A bit later, Nelson told the lawyer representing the witnesses that he could give her a list of their names (6/6/13 hearing, 22:31).

It seems clear to me that the issue is alive.

 

[nomatter_nevermind]

"No, I made a statement of fact." regarding what Corey would be remembered for, which would be the good things she had done, the promises she kept.

Wow, are you spinning that.

The remark was backhanded, highlighting White's criticism of Corey's failure to keep a campaign promise (6/6/13 hearing, 44:52).