Author Topic: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013  (Read 15522 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2013, 03:00:33 PM »
ROTFL.  Reich's report should have started, "It was a dark and stormy night."

This is a good closing by West.  Anybody have a suggested site where I can upload the audio?  Or a place I can e-mail it so somebody else can post/host it?

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2013, 03:01:34 PM »
West is the strongest he's ever been here. Very convincing argument.

"Dark and stormy night" indeed.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2013, 03:04:37 PM »

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2013, 03:06:02 PM »
Damnit West, stay off differing opinions and back to methodological flaws. Opinion isn't Frye territory.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2013, 03:11:50 PM »
Reich attributes behavioral characteristics for which is has no expertise.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2013, 03:13:46 PM »
West so far has not said that there is no scientific way to identify a screamer by comparing screams with anything else, even other screams.  That is why Owen and Reich don't satisfy Frye.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2013, 03:17:16 PM »
The facts of Ramirez is the best argument here. Just because the label is accepted doesn't mean the methodology is.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2013, 03:24:49 PM »
Only Owen has testified the method is accepted.  All the other experts say it (EZ Voice biometrics) is not, and Owen can;t explain how he reaches the conclusion that his method (EZ Voice) is scientifically valid.

West now ties this to Ramirez.  First part, is there a methodology?  Aural spectrographic, aural listening have been around.  Automated speaker recognition is getting traction, but not there yet.  But, even if you assume the method is generally accepted (Owen's is not, or critical listening alone which is not), under Frye, it is not just the method, but application of the method to the facts of the case, and if that is not accepted, then it is new and novel, and it is up to the proponent to prove propriety of the method/application.

In Ramirez, the tool mark testimony was not admitted, even though tool mark is admitted, the application in the Ramirez case was new and novel.

Burden is on Maintei to show the method is accepted.  Mantei is relying on Owen and Reich to validate their own methods.  Courtroom is not a laboratory.  The court has to do a legal reliability analysis.  The court has to consider the effect on the jury, will prejudice outweigh probative value?  Or would it confuse the jury?  State's experts oppose each other on the words said.  Most jurors are aware of the recordings.  Some were aware the parties were litigating admissibility of the voice experts.

This evidence must be excluded on (Rule) 403 grounds.  It is not helpful.  It will confuse them.  Minimal probative value.

West says he is going to sit down.  The court has been very patient.  He asks the court to exclude the testimony.

Rebuttal by Maintei.  403 says "substantial risk of unfair prejudice."  PhD not required to be an expert.  Reich does have a tentative opinion; and none of the other experts have listened to the NEN call - Doddington did, says Nelson.  Mantei rebuts the defense whinge about timing (which isn't an issue for Frye purposes).


Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2013, 03:27:32 PM »
Strange why Owen and Reich didn't test the Trayvon Martin sample.  Owen has the scream section looped for comparison so it should be a snap for him to carry it out.  Neither lawyer wants to mention this.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2013, 03:30:07 PM »
Mantei has no objection to defense experts.  They can come in.

Mantei says if any expert had said Zimmerman was screaming (Hello! H&H said that), the defense would not be complaining the testimony didn't meet the Frye standard.

Mantei done at 5:27.  West wanted to surrebut.  Nelson says no, she has enough.  She will review her notes, and expects to have an order tomorrow.  Court in recess until 9 am tomorrow, several motions and the Frye result.


Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2013, 04:03:16 PM »
Is Nelson's refusal to hear a sur-rebuttal a sign she intends to rule for the defense, another sign she dislikes West, of merely a sign of impatience?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2013, 04:07:26 PM »
Is Nelson's refusal to hear a sur-rebuttal a sign she intends to rule for the defense, another sign she dislikes West, of merely a sign of impatience?

I don't think West had anything to add that would play in the legal calculus.  He might have rebutted the contention that no expert heard Zimmerman screaming, H&H claimed to.

I'm biased to think Nelson will rule for the state just to keep the trial from being put on hold while the state appeals denail of the expert.  If she buys the defense argument, she sure as H E double toothpicks isn't going to admit it.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2013, 04:12:52 PM »
Is Nelson's refusal to hear a sur-rebuttal a sign she intends to rule for the defense, another sign she dislikes West, of merely a sign of impatience?
I was wondering the same thing. I think she may rule for the defense. The testimony has been so overwhelming and clear that no science can identify the screams. Nelson seems to me to be a "law and order" judge likely to side with law enforcement and the state. That is why I think the defense having the FBI, someone with NSA top secret security, and the head of DOD's national biometric lab may have had a big impact on Nelson's decision.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2013, 04:17:05 PM »
I saw somewhere that the State loses the chance for interlocutory appeal on a Frye ruling after the jury is sworn in. I can't find any such language in the appellate rules on this. Does anybody here know?

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #44 on: June 20, 2013, 04:20:24 PM »
I was wondering the same thing. I think she may rule for the defense. The testimony has been so overwhelming and clear that no science can identify the screams. Nelson seems to me to be a "law and order" judge likely to side with law enforcement and the state. That is why I think the defense having the FBI, someone with NSA top secret security, and the head of DOD's national biometric lab may have had a big impact on Nelson's decision.

Also Nelson helped the defense by interjecting that Reich has not completed his report and that Doddington did look at the spectrograms. Both seem to me to be good signs for the defense.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking