Author Topic: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013  (Read 15504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ding7777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Rate Post +19/-59
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #75 on: June 22, 2013, 05:51:57 AM »
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?

IIRC, the using the voice experts will add  2 weeks to the trial.  Nelson seems to want this trial over as quickly as possible

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #76 on: June 22, 2013, 06:11:33 AM »
IIRC, the using the voice experts will add  2 weeks to the trial.  Nelson seems to want this trial over as quickly as possible

The expert testimony is projected to add one week.  Th state and defense have given a 2-4 week estimate of total duration.  My guess is that they mean and maybe have expressed to Nelson, 2-3 weeks if no experts, 3-4 weeks if the voice experts are admitted.

I don't think Nelson had any particular concern over the previous estimate of 4-6 weeks, other than for purposes of the cost of sequestration.  And, O'Mara has said that the previous estimate of 4-6 weeks included jury selection, which took 2 weeks for all practical purposes.

She won't say "no experts" in order to make the trial shorter.  Plus, a "no experts" decision runs the risk of the state appealing that decision to the DCA, and pushing the end of the trial farther out into the future.  Meaning that a "no experts" ruling creates a trial that could take longer than the 4 weeks if the experts are admitted.

jjr495 wondered if the state is allowed to appeal now that the trial has officially started (swearing in the jury).  That's a good question, but I think the state would appeal an adverse ruling even if the end result is the DCA ruling that it won;t visit that issue due to the untimeliness.  I think the DCA would take the appeal.  It is not the state's fault that Nelson ran the jury selection and Frye hearing in the same week, and it is not the state's fault that the court swore in the jury before rendering a decision on admissibility of experts.  The state has a "legally/technically" valid point that its case would be prejudiced if it can't present its experts; and that if the jury renders a not-guilty verdict, the state is precluded from conducting another trial.

If Nelson rules against the defense, and allows the experts, the defense has no right to appeal until after the trial concludes.

So, from a timing standpoint, assuming Nelson wants to get this over with quickest, the preferred decision is to rule in favor of the state and admit the experts.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #77 on: June 22, 2013, 06:17:42 AM »
H&H have Martin's voice at the beginning and Zimmerman at the end. Reich has Zimmerman at the beginning and Martin at the end. Owen assumes they all came from one person. Three State experts. Three contradictory reports.

A non-important observation about the role of H&H in this proceeding.  Since the state did not attempt to enter their testimony in the Frye hearing, Nelson is acting as though H&H's report does not exist.  So when Mantei claimed that the defense would love to have an expert who said the voice was Zimmerman, and that no expert made that conclusion (a conclusion that H&H did make, albeit with a substantial degree of uncertainty attached), Nelson will turn a deaf ear to being told that H&H report, which is on the record but not in the Frye hearing, contradicts Mantei.  What Mantei implied about no expert finding the voice to be Zimmerman is not true, but from Nelson's point of view, it is true.

Very slimy on Nelson's part.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #78 on: June 22, 2013, 06:51:45 AM »
What Mantei implied about no expert finding the voice to be Zimmerman is not true, but from Nelson's point of view, it is true.

I don't see how that point is relevant. It was a cheap shot at the other side by Mantei. But I don't see how it's being true, or not true, has any bearing on whether the state's evidence meets the Frye standard.

Quote
Very slimy on Nelson's part.

Exactly what has Nelson done that you consider slimy?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #79 on: June 22, 2013, 08:07:51 AM »
I think the performance of West and O'Mara in the Frye hearing left much to be desired.  They diluted their experts' testimony and I am sure most on this jury would not be paying attention and would miss the punch line if they did the same thing in front of them.  Nelson can at least read the CVs so why bother to spend hours having them present them?  West sounded particularly lame when he went into Owen's financial stake in the software he used while he had so many better, more important complaints.  Here is what was not asked or emphasized.
  • Mr. Owen, how many times have you testified in court about identifying screams from people in extremis?
  • Mr. Owen tell us about how recent advances in biometric science allow you to compare screams with speech.  (Play here the claim made to Soledad O'Brien.)
  • Prof. Expert please listen to Mr. Owen's claim that we can now compare speech with screams and tell us if you agree?
  • Mr. Owen, please tell us the results of comparing Trayvon Martin's exemplar with the screams on the 911 call.
  • Mr. Owen do you have any examples of comparing screams from a known person in extremis with that person's speaking voice?
  • Mr. Owen are you aware that the EZVoice manual has an example of comparing a person whispering against their regular speaking voice and the score is about the same as your 911 screaming vs Zimmerman result?
  • Mr. Owen, EZVoice says their software is only for investigative rather than courtroom use.  Why are you here?
  • Dr. Reich, when is the last time you testified in court about filling in the trascript with unintelligible portions of a recording?
  • Dr. Reich when is the last time you had your hearing tested, both with and without hearing aid?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #80 on: June 22, 2013, 02:17:38 PM »
The post also points out the Castillo case, which recedes from Ramirez.

It was the law review article that said Castillo "retreated" from Ramirez. The court, itself, cited Ramirez without giving any indication there was any disagreement, much less an intention to "recede" from the previous decision. The dissent also doesn't mention this supposed receding.

I admit that there are statements in Castillo that seem at odds with Ramirez. I think, though, based on the court's discussion of the scientific evidence, that what the court meant was that once the methodology has proven acceptable, the experts' conclusions derived from the methodology aren't subject to the Frye test. At one point, the court says:

Quote
It is clear that the Castillos do not need to present epidemiological studies to meet their burden. It is also clear that there were at least three studies at the time of the Frye hearing that the Castillos' experts considered and then deemed inconclusive to establish a causal link between benomyl exposure and microphthalmia, or lack thereof. DuPont and Pine Island's objections are to the conclusions the Castillos' experts reached, not the methodology itself.

(Also, the Florida supreme court seems to be very plaintiff-friendly when it comes to medical malpractice suits and the like. They seem to bend the rules a bit in these cases to achieve their preferred result. As I understand it, that's why the legislature shoved Daubert down their throats.)

« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 02:19:58 PM by MJW »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013
« Reply #81 on: June 23, 2013, 01:30:09 AM »
Cboldt, are you going to answer my question? It wasn't rhetorical. I don't understand what you were talking about.

You have accused Judge Nelson of committing, or contemplating, some impropriety, using nasty language. Do you not feel an obligation to support that, or retract it?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking