Author Topic: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013  (Read 2711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« on: June 13, 2013, 01:54:03 AM »
This thread is for comments about Day 4 of  jury selection proceedings, June 13, 2013. There are separate threads for live updating of the proceedings and for other matters pertaining to jury selection.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2013, 10:13:38 AM »
Isn't today still part of the initial phase which is supposed to be devoted mostly to knowledge of the case obtained from the media?  It seems that E-81 was asked about her evaluation of the evidence that has become public.  Why was that in bounds?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2013, 10:38:00 AM »
Isn't today still part of the initial phase which is supposed to be devoted mostly to knowledge of the case obtained from the media?  It seems that E-81 was asked about her evaluation of the evidence that has become public.  Why was that in bounds?

All along the lawyers have been asking about the candidates' reactions to what they had seen and heard, as well as their 'knowledge'.

I don't understand what you think is different about the treatment of E-81.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2013, 10:45:27 AM »
Let me put the question this way, What is left to ask E-81 in the voir dire proper?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2013, 11:04:46 AM »
Let me put the question this way, What is left to ask E-81 in the voir dire proper?

That was discussed in an earlier post.


Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2013, 05:20:09 PM »
Daily numbers now using Dman's data and NM_NM's demographics :
Exact two-tailed binomial tests of sample so far, assuming Seminole demographics W=65.8%,H=17.7%,B=11.7%

W:  25 of 35: 59% chance of random occurrence from population(i.e. p-value=0.59)
B:  5 of 35: 60% chance of random occurrence (i.e. p-value=0.60)
H: 4 of 35: 50% chance of random occurrence
Racially, there is no statistically significant difference between the known jurors and the population of Seminole County.

F: 22 of 35: 18% chance  of random occurrence
There is no statistically significant difference between the known jurors' gender  and the population of Seminole County.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2013, 05:20:58 PM »
Speculation of the day.  The Frye hearing is over and there will be no formal announcement.  The prosecution has decided not to call any voice experts and the defense has agreed not to say anything about it in order to avoid prejudicing the jury.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2013, 05:45:50 PM »
Speculation of the day.  The Frye hearing is over and there will be no formal announcement.  The prosecution has decided not to call any voice experts and the defense has agreed not to say anything about it in order to avoid prejudicing the jury.

I think if that agreement were reached, the defense would ask for a formal stipulation.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2013, 05:53:25 PM »
Speculation of the day.  The Frye hearing is over and there will be no formal announcement.  The prosecution has decided not to call any voice experts and the defense has agreed not to say anything about it in order to avoid prejudicing the jury.
Look at the document linked by MJW in the "Voice Experts Section".
The state says:
In any event, Defefdent's instant motion (correctly) limits itself to the methods of identifying the speakers of the undisputed screams are "new and novel".
That was written just after Owen's testimony. That explains French's insistence that the methods used by Owen and Reich to identify screams were "new and novel".
The defense's testimony on whether it would be new and novel to identify screams was devastating.
So maybe after Owen, they new they would never put him on the stand again but were hoping to at least salvage Reich in terms of the words he heard?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2013, 06:18:04 PM »
So maybe after Owen, they new they would never put him on the stand again but were hoping to at least salvage Reich in terms of the words he heard?

Yes.  Turning up the volume and listening to the white noise is not new and novel.  Like the accountant who gets the job by closing the door, looking around, and quietly answering "whatever you want it to be" after being asked "How much is 100 plus 50?

Mantei's written objection aiming to cut off questioning is a joke.  It's as bad a piece of legal (and logical) argument, as Owen/Reich's work is as a technical argument.  Best I can tell, Nelson didn't abide by Mantei's notice of objection, and putting it in writing saved him the embarrassment of making it during the hearing.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2013, 06:34:46 PM »

Mantei's written objection aiming to cut off questioning is a joke.  It's as bad a piece of legal (and logical) argument, as Owen/Reich's work is as a technical argument.  Best I can tell, Nelson didn't abide by Mantei's notice of objection, and putting it in writing saved him the embarrassment of making it during the hearing.
The objection was posted last Friday. Maybe writing these things during lunch isn't a good idea.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2013, 06:50:53 PM »
Honest to Pete...I have no idea how you all manage to keep up.  I tried a Word program for one juror and got involved with listening and not typing.  I am a craptastic typist anywhoo.  The whole thing looked like bovine matter.

Thank you. From the bottom of my heart.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2013, 06:37:31 AM »
I want to follow up a bit on yesterday's voir dire of E-81.  I had some thoughts on that I didn't feel I had time to articulate during yesterday's update.

E-81 and de la Rionda were butting heads through much of the questioning, but I felt there were two major escalations. The first was when he asked if he would have to do magic to convince her that Zimmerman is guilty. There was an angry back and forth between them too fast for me to follow, let alone transcribe or summarize in real time. I think the gist of her response, or part of it, was that de la Rionda was trying to put something into her mouth that she hadn't said.

O'Mara then jumped up and, I think, addressed de la Rionda directly, instead of making an objection to Nelson. It was then that Nelson called a halt, taking the unusual step of calling a sidebar herself. I think she may have given the lawyers a little scolding.

The other flare-up came when E-81 resisted answering de la Rionda's questions about other people's opinions. But I need to prepare for today's updates, so I'll have to take that up afterwards.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2013, 08:13:45 AM »
Speculation of the day.  The Frye hearing is over and there will be no formal announcement.  The prosecution has decided not to call any voice experts and the defense has agreed not to say anything about it in order to avoid prejudicing the jury.
I am humbled, but very happy to be wrong about this.  The Frye hearing was the best thing in the courtroom case so far and I am happy that there will be some more.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Four Thoughts, June 13, 2013
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2013, 07:44:53 AM »
We learned Friday that E-81 didn't make the cut. The 28 who did have been listed, along with another who has been excused but is not yet identified.

I'm still interested in de la Rionda's handling of his confrontation with E-81, which has been one of the more dramatic epsiodes in the voir dire.

YouTube now has many videos with segments of the hearing.

Video of the part I'm discussing is here.

I didn't do a very good job keeping up with this in my update.

The incident discussed in my previous post is transcribed below.

Quote
E-81: You'd have to work really hard to change my opinion.

De la Rionda: [Unintelligible], we're being honest here, right?

E-81: Yes.

De la Rionda: I would have to be like -

E-81: Yes.

De la Rionda: I would have to work magic to change your opinion, wouldn't you agree?

E-81: If you feel that it would be magic, then, OK.

De la Rionda: [Crosstalk] I would have to go beyond the norm. Right?

O'Mara: Your honor.

E-81: I don't know what the norm would be here.

O'Mara: I object at this point. I understand the need for this inquiry, but if he's challenging the juror as if she knows, what she is [crosstalk].

O'Mara was cut off by Judge Nelson calling a sidebar.

In the update I said I didn't catch a formal objection. That's because O'Mara and E-81 were speaking at the same time.

In my previous post, I said that I thought O'Mara addressed de la Rionda directly instead of Nelson. Obviously that's not correct.

It seems O'Mara won the sidebar. De la Rionda returned with a different line of questioning.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking