Author Topic: June 8th Hearing  (Read 12503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #90 on: June 09, 2013, 11:53:33 AM »
I agree with you about Doddington (why do I keep wanting to type "Donnington"?) but I believe I started this by wondering about MOM's reason(s) for putting him on the stand--and I have to think Doddington's contemptuous dismissals of Owen and Reich were part of what MOM was going for.

Or I could be completely wrong. It happened once before, so I know it's possible.


Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #91 on: June 09, 2013, 05:26:34 PM »
What is the standard of review of Nelson's upcoming Frye ruling on appeal in Florida? I assume that after she has held an evidentiary hearing the standard would not be de novo?

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #92 on: June 09, 2013, 05:53:43 PM »
Frye hearings are reviewed de novo.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #93 on: June 09, 2013, 06:00:05 PM »
Is there any notion of burden of proof, that the Frye test is satisfied, for the side that wants to introduce the evidence in question?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #94 on: June 09, 2013, 06:19:55 PM »
Is there any notion of burden of proof, that the Frye test is satisfied, for the side that wants to introduce the evidence in question?

The burden is on the proponent.  I think you may be asking about the standard of proof, but since the Frye test is a question of law, "standard of proof" doesn't really play.  Either the expert passes the hurdle, or not.  Appellate review varies state by state.  As Jeralyn points out, in Florida, the standard of review is "de novo," which means the appellate court will take the record, and build on it if it wants to, and basically substitute it's sense for the lower court's sense.  The two courts may agree or disagree - but the ruling represents the appellate court's conclusion.

The State of Judicial Gatekeeping in Florida.

A good general source (more than Florida): Daubert On The Web

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #95 on: June 09, 2013, 06:30:27 PM »
What is the standard of review of Nelson's upcoming Frye ruling on appeal in Florida? I assume that after she has held an evidentiary hearing the standard would not be de novo?

You didn't ask, but the timing of review will vary depending on which way she rules.  If she rules against the state, and the state appeals, the appellate review will stay trial proceedings.  If she rules against O'Mara, the trial goes on, and any appeal is taken after the trial, conditioned on defendant having been convicted.  I'm not sure if defendant has a right to appeal if there is a mistrial based only on a hung jury.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #96 on: June 09, 2013, 06:54:29 PM »
The burden is on the proponent.  I think you may be asking about the standard of proof, but since the Frye test is a question of law, "standard of proof" doesn't really play.  Either the expert passes the hurdle, or not.  Appellate review varies state by state.  As Jeralyn points out, in Florida, the standard of review is "de novo," which means the appellate court will take the record, and build on it if it wants to, and basically substitute it's sense for the lower court's sense.  The two courts may agree or disagree - but the ruling represents the appellate court's conclusion.

The State of Judicial Gatekeeping in Florida.

A good general source (more than Florida): Daubert On The Web
Yes, of course I meant standard.  The Florida reference you gave has:
Quote
Burden of Proof
     In Florida�s Frye test, the burden is on "the proponent of the evidence to prove the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principle and the testing procedures used to apply that principle to the facts at hand."  Ramirez 651 So. 2d at 1168.  Additionally, general acceptance must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.
The last sentence seems to say that you must show it more likely than not that the science and the way it was applied in the case are generally accepted, so a standard of proof is given.  How can anyone argue that the testing procedures used by Owen and Reich are "generally accepted"?  I can't think of a way Judge Nelson could spin this to let them testify.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #97 on: June 09, 2013, 07:08:41 PM »
I can't think of a way Judge Nelson could spin this to let them testify.

See the link posted yesterday, in this thread, that says Ramirez is akin to Daubert, and that Castillo has superseded Ramirez.  I blockquoted the relevant section of that link in my post.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #98 on: June 09, 2013, 07:40:35 PM »
Quote
Retreating from Ramirez, the Castillo court held that Frye only required the trial court to examine the general acceptance of the underlying science and experiments from which the expert witness obtained the data used to draw his conclusions, not the reasoning or conclusions themselves.
Are experiments to produce data like amplifying noise and claiming to hear words, repeating a poor quality segment so it will satisfy a computer program's requirement and raising the pitch of a voice signal to make a comparison, generally accepted?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #99 on: June 10, 2013, 03:24:13 AM »
Are experiments to produce data like amplifying noise and claiming to hear words, repeating a poor quality segment so it will satisfy a computer program's requirement and raising the pitch of a voice signal to make a comparison, generally accepted?

There is a large variety of arguments that can be made to allow the testimony.  Your argument can be disposed of by claiming that what Owen and Reich did was not "experiments to produce data"  It was analysis of evidence/data provided by others.

That said, the analytical techniques you noted are all known to create error where none existed before.  Just the same, Nelson is almost certainly going to punt this to the jury, assuming the state dares to put Owen and/or Reich on the witness stand.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #100 on: June 10, 2013, 06:12:49 AM »
I'm speculating that today's action will be more on the Frye hearing than on jury selection, as the prospective jurors will have to complete the questionnaires before voir dire begins.  I estimate it will take them a couple hours to plow through the written questions.

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #101 on: June 10, 2013, 11:00:19 AM »
I think the defense should have shown Figures 3, 5, and 6 from this article.
Fig 3 shows how pitch dramatically changes under different types of speech. Fig 5 shows how most but not all of the spectral features change. Fig 6 show how the first formant changes, but the others not as much.
So when Owen adjusted the frequency of the exemplar to match the pitch of the screams, he completely screwed up all of the other spectral signatures that his biometric system measures and compares.
So it was preordained that the exemplar and screams would not match. That is much worse than a 50% random coin flip. For George it was heads you lose tails the state wins because of Owens idiotic methodology.
Probably too late for this, but given everything Owen did to the samples of George's voice to get his results, I'm wondering if the defense could find someone with the same software he's peddling and have them pitch up a sample of Trayvon's voice, then compare the results to the results of an analysis of the same sample unaltered.

I suspect they wouldn't get any better match than what Owen did with George's voice, and it's one of those in-court demonstrations that makes the prosecution's case look bad.

And did Owen pitch up five semitones? I think that's from C to F on a piano keyboard.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 11:02:28 AM by Evil Chinchilla »

 

Site Meter
click
tracking