Author Topic: June 8th Hearing  (Read 12146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2013, 12:27:34 PM »
Finally, O'Mara gets to the issue of why Doddington first wouldn't listen to the sample.

There is no data to support a conclusion that the evaluation method of Owen or Reich is reliable.  If Doddington had been called to evaluation this, he would red-flag his conclusion as unreliable.

Even if you have an hour of screaming, the science concludes that any evaluation is impossible under current knowledge.  There are no worthy judgments or decisions that can be made on this data.  This is the worst data set imaginable.  Dr. French wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.  The witness is excused.

Doddington is excused.  O'Mara is setting up the next witness, who is remote.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #46 on: June 08, 2013, 12:31:29 PM »
O'Mara says that it'll be 15-20 minutes before the witness is available.

West asks the court to relax the monitoring rule for times that Zimmerman is in court.  They ask that Zimmerman not be required to call in in the 10-12 am time to his monitoring.  Nelson offers 8-9 am, 6-7 pm as alternatives, as frequently as Zimmerman has to call in.  Court is in recess until O'Mara's witness is ready.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #47 on: June 08, 2013, 12:42:43 PM »
Even after a couple of minutes, it is clear that Mantei is much more tech savvy than O'Mara.

Probably why the prosecution assigned him with their endless resources and bottomless pile of taxpayer money.

The defense can't afford tens of thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer who specializes in technology so they do the best they can.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 12:46:44 PM by Redbrow »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2013, 12:52:04 PM »
Witness is stuck on a plane.  Court is in recess until Monday morning.  The Frye hearing is continued to an indefinite time.  That concludes today's action.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #49 on: June 08, 2013, 12:54:29 PM »
Doddington criticizes Nakasone and French for not opening themselves up to enough evaluation even though Nakasone would never go to court under even iideal circumstances, and French says that he would immediately reject the 911 recording in this case. This illustrates just how far out of the scientific consensus are Reich and Owen. I hope Nelson understands this and not just that Doddington is critical of Nakasone and French.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2013, 12:58:51 PM »
Witness is stuck on a plane.  Court is in recess until Monday morning.  The Frye hearing is continued to an indefinite time.  That concludes today's action.

How does that work? Doesn't the Frye hearing have to be completed before trial, or is it just before they decide to bring in that testimony?

Seems to me Nelson's leaving an awful lot of things half done to be finished ...later.


Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #51 on: June 08, 2013, 01:01:22 PM »
If the defense was really top of the line, they would have flow charted the various methodologies used by Owen and Reich, as they explained in their reports.  They would have shown the flow charts to O and R during their testimony to get their agreement that that is what they have done or how to modify them.  Then they would show the flow charts to their own experts to get their comments on whether or not they are standard methodologies.  That way the judge should know exactly what the decision should be on Frye.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #52 on: June 08, 2013, 01:04:27 PM »
Doddington criticizes Nakasone and French for not opening themselves up to enough evaluation even though Nakasone would never go to court under even iideal circumstances, and French says that he would immediately reject the 911 recording in this case. This illustrates just how far out of the scientific consensus are Reich and Owen. I hope Nelson understands this and not just that Doddington is critical of Nakasone and French.

That's O'Mara's job, to pull out the reason or basis for Doddington's criticism, and to put it in context of Owen and Reich.  I think he can salvage that in argument, after the witnesses have testified, but it much cleaner to have the witness make the point directly.

I don't think making the point matters in this case.  Nelson made up her mind before hearing the evidence.  The legal argument is based on the Frye test, which itself can be misapplied (much as Reich misapplied audio linguistics, and Owen misapplied sound waveform manipulation and science in ruling out Zimmerman as source).  It would be one thing if the experts used the same tools and came to opposite conclusions.  Here, the correct experts (not Owen and Reich) are simply saying the data can't be analyzed.  That factor has no play in the Frye test.  It's irrelevant, or can be made to be irrelevant by a judge who disrespects the function of the law as gatekeeper, and is willing to apply a hypertechnical legal methodology.  She's going to turn the Frye test upside down in order to find for the state.

In the principled version of the law, the version that is as real as unicorns, the court's function is to prevent junk science from being used to influence the jury.  But, when junk science meets junk court, the result is a crapshoot.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2013, 01:04:54 PM »
How does that work? Doesn't the Frye hearing have to be completed before trial, or is it just before they decide to bring in that testimony?

Seems to me Nelson's leaving an awful lot of things half done to be finished ...later.

Seems as if her mind is already made up and the remaining witness is just a formality for show.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2013, 01:07:42 PM »
How does that work? Doesn't the Frye hearing have to be completed before trial, or is it just before they decide to bring in that testimony?

Seems to me Nelson's leaving an awful lot of things half done to be finished ...later.

The expert exclusion can happen any time up until the state decides to call an expert to the stand.  I didn't expect a ruling at the conclusion of witness testimony.  The lawyers will argue to the court, maybe the court will require arguments be reduced to writing to facilitate her ruling.

She's swept a few thing to post-trial, so those don't muck up the trial proceeding at all (other than Bernardo should be kicked off the trial - but I think the defense will do better with Bernardo arguing than with Guy).

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #55 on: June 08, 2013, 01:10:32 PM »
What has the judge done during the Frye Hearing that tips off how she will rule?

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2013, 01:11:27 PM »
Nelson has all the time in the world for the prosecution's nonsense as evidenced by her threat to bring the hearing to a grinding halt and conduct a Richardson hearing (regarding West/O'Mara emails) yesterday. But she is rushing or postponing anything that might possibly benefit the defense even at the expense of Zimmerman's right to due process.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 01:16:27 PM by Redbrow »

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2013, 01:12:08 PM »
If the defense was really top of the line, they would have flow charted the various methodologies used by Owen and Reich, as they explained in their reports.  They would have shown the flow charts to O and R during their testimony to get their agreement that that is what they have done or how to modify them.  Then they would show the flow charts to their own experts to get their comments on whether or not they are standard methodologies.  That way the judge should know exactly what the decision should be on Frye.

Isn't there a fine line regarding what one expert can say about the work of another expert? I believe it's relaxed some for the purpose of the Frye hearing, but I also saw Nelson get a little testy on the issue, so I don't know as that would've been the best way to go.

Besides, the judge already knows what the decision should be.

She also knows what the decision's gonna be. We all know it.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #58 on: June 08, 2013, 01:13:23 PM »
Seems as if her mind is already made up and the remaining witness is just a formality for show.

I don't think she's telegraphed a ruling as to experts, other than her past decisions on unrelated matters favor the state (mostly) and she appears to have a hostile attitude against the defense.  She's let both side run fairly free with the questioning, she hasn't interrupted, she's been even handed as to objections, she didn't allow the state to see O'Mara/West correspondence with the experts.

I think a ruling for the state is a foregone conclusion, but I don't see evidence for that popping up during the Frye hearing, so far.  She might signal something during argument, following the testimony by the witnesses.  She usually does telegraph which side she favors, sometime during argument.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #59 on: June 08, 2013, 01:13:58 PM »
What has the judge done during the Frye Hearing that tips off how she will rule?

The same thing she did during all the previous motion hearings that went totally for the prosecution.

I believe she'll punt the issue of credibility to the jury.

ETA: And really, other than wanting to see the State lose something, and thinking their "experts" are a couple of the biggest morons around (despite Jeralyn saying Owen was a really good witness), I don't have a problem with the jury making the determination.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 01:16:06 PM by annoyedbeyond »

 

Site Meter
click
tracking