Author Topic: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013  (Read 7303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2013, 03:57:11 PM »
Like Doddington, this expert calls Reich's assertion of 16-bit resolution very unlikely.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2013, 04:01:25 PM »
Like Doddington, this expert calls Reich's assertion of 16-bit resolution very unlikely.

heheheh.  I trust Doddington would not lie.  Reich is wrong - the best evidence has 8 bit resolution.  It would be easy to prove, if the court wants to be obstinate about it.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2013, 04:09:29 PM »
Could West have asked him first for his bottom line conclusion about the prosecution's acoustic evidence and then gone back with the rationale for it?  I don't think the judge is following all this.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2013, 04:20:14 PM »
Could West have asked him first for his bottom line conclusion about the prosecution's acoustic evidence and then gone back with the rationale for it?  I don't think the judge is following all this.

Yes, he could have.

I think it will tie in.  If Nelson is awake, she'll get the point.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2013, 04:23:29 PM »
He's putting the pieces together now. Recorded speech is waveform samples in time. These waveforms can be plotted by amplitude and frequency. The plots tend to group together in a bell - denser in the middle of the plot and less dense on the margins. For that reason. these plots are called a Gaussian mixture model. Expert is identifying how these models can be skewed by things like number of plots and  environmental and physiological conditions.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2013, 04:38:24 PM »
Even assuming a well-trained model using the same channel and conditions, the sample size in the 911 call is far to short for reliable recognition. The development of a methodology that could reliably achieve this result would rewrite the science of speaker recognition.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2013, 04:40:27 PM »
He's putting the pieces together now. Recorded speech is waveform samples in time. These waveforms can be plotted by amplitude and frequency. The plots tend to group together in a bell - denser in the middle of the plot and less dense on the margins. For that reason. these plots are called a Gaussian mixture model. Expert is identifying how these models can be skewed by things like number of plots and  environmental and physiological conditions.

You may have heard him refer to "cotton balls."  These are three dimensional probability density distributions (although more than three dimensions can be used), where points are plotted based on frequency/power relationships at each "instant in time" in an utterance.  The method gives thousands of points per second of utterance.

These "cotton ball cluster patterns" are what is compared in the mathematical models.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2013, 05:20:51 PM »
The court blew it on Mantei's last objection, and West hasn't yet composed a correction.

Florida Rule 90.704

90.704 Basis of opinion testimony by experts. -- The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by, or made known to, the expert at or before the trial. If the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence


Mantei based his objection on a rule that allows opposition to bring in an article to rebut an expert, without bringing in the author of the article.

Florida Rule 90.706

90.706 Authoritativeness of literature for use in cross-examination. -- Statements of facts or opinions on a subject of science, art, or specialized knowledge contained in a published treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing may be used in cross-examination of an expert witness if the expert witness recognizes the author or the treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing to be authoritative, or, notwithstanding nonrecognition by the expert witness, if the trial court finds the author or the treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing to be authoritative and relevant to the subject matter.


What was at risk or cut out of Wayman's testimony was the Secret Service standard for minimum quality of samples for voice identification.  That publication is used by experts in the field, Wayman is qualified to use it.  It is admissible for purposes of Wayman's testimony.

The state and the court used the wrong rule of evidence to come up with the result it wanted.  Too Bad West hadn't boned up on the rules of evidence for experts.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2013, 06:02:16 PM »
I don't get what Mantei is doing in his cross examination.  All the points he is making help the defense.  Why is he casting doubt on the reliability of forensic evidence?  The defense doesn't want any voice evidence to appear in the trial.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2013, 06:10:16 PM »
I doubt that the judge will get anything more out of the hearing that the defense came up with four real scientists think the prosecution's witnesses are not presenting reliable science.  Maybe that is enough.  Could the prosecution really have a serious rebuttal witness?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2013, 06:10:35 PM »
I don't get what Mantei is doing in his cross examination.  All the points he is making help the defense.  Why is he casting doubt on the reliability of forensic evidence?  The defense doesn't want any voice evidence to appear in the trial.

The logic he is using is that the Frye standard and Florida law has a very low threshold for admitting expert testimony.  The fact that Wayman disagrees is just an example of two experts, both qualified, being in disagreement.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2013, 06:12:05 PM »
I doubt that the judge will get anything more out of the hearing that the defense came up with four real scientists think the prosecution's witnesses are not presenting reliable science.  Maybe that is enough.  Could the prosecution really have a serious rebuttal witness?

I can't see the state having a rebuttal expert witness.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2013, 06:18:56 PM »
Lawrence Tribe's paper on probabilities in court, mentioned by Mantei and Wayman.  It has Collins, Dreyfus and more.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2013, 06:28:51 PM »
State will have an expert rebuttal witness.  Wednesday at 4 p.m.  Mr. Owen, back in the barrel.  LOL.  Mantei estimates one hour of direct exam.  Casseis (sp?) case being cited as legal authority.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 17, 2013
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2013, 06:31:10 PM »
You were right originally, cbolt, the state won't have a rebuttal expert witness.  I expect Jeralyn will remove this comment.   ;D

 

Site Meter
click
tracking