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.
