Frye Hearing, June 20, 2013

[MJW]

So you don't think the prosecution actually believes Trayvon is the screamer on the 911 recording?

If they actually believe Martin was screaming in terror for half a minute and then Zimmerman shot him, how would that not be first degree murder?

[jjr495]

If they actually believe Martin was screaming in terror for half a minute and then Zimmerman shot him, how would that not be first degree murder?

Crump seems to agree with you at 7:20 in this interview.
However, he goes on to make clear that he doesn't have a clear idea as to what did actually happen.

[cboldt]

If they actually believe Martin was screaming in terror for half a minute and then Zimmerman shot him, how would that not be first degree murder?

I think Murder 1 breaks down for want of premeditation.  IIRC Jeralyn did a piece on this, and having only short term contact with a person (i.e., Martin was a stranger) precludes a charge of 1st degree murder.

The statute:

1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being

The jury instruction:

"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so.  The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing.  The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing.  The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant.  The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence.  It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

Then there is the fact that Murder one is a capital offense, and Corey would have had to engage the services of a grand jury to obtain an indictment.

[jjr495]

I don't think Reich, even if allowed to testify as to some things, would be allowed to say what he heard on the tape. Unless, of course, Florida law is different.

I think the Florida Supreme Court is saying pretty much the same thing in Martinez V State (761 So. 2d 1074; 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1218; 25 Fla. L. Weekly S 471)

[HN12] Preliminarily, the trial court must determine that the unintelligible
portions  [*1086]  of the tape do not render the whole recording untrustworthy.
See Odom, 403 So. 2d at 940; Henry, 629 So. 2d at 1059; Harris, 619 So. 2d at
342. [**32]  As for the transcript, trial courts should exercise extreme caution
before allowing transcripts of recordings to be viewed by the jury. See Robinson
, 707 F.2d at 876; Slade, 627 F.2d at 302. The preferred approach is for the
parties to stipulate to the accuracy of the transcript. See Slade, 627 F.2d at
302. If there is a dispute as to the accuracy, the trial court should make an
independent pretrial determination of the accuracy of the transcript after
hearing from persons who can properly testify as to its accuracy. See Robinson,
707 F.2d at 876; Slade, 627 F.2d at 302. Those who may be able to verify the
accuracy of the transcript are: (1) the actual participants to the conversation;
or (2) those who listened to or overheard the conversation as it was being
recorded, so long as such persons can establish that the quality of the
conversation that they overheard or listened to was better at the time they
overheard it than the quality of the tape recording.

So I guess Zimmerman or W11 could authenticate what was said.

[MJW]

I think Murder 1 breaks down for want of premeditation.

GZ would have had at least 30 seconds to think about what he was going to do. I've often heard premeditation can occur in a moment.

[TalkLeft]

Let's keep this to the Frye hearing please.

Is the ruling out? It's 5pm ET. She said this morning she expected to have it out today.

[cboldt]

Is the ruling out? It's 5pm ET. She said this morning she expected to have it out today.

It might be, we don't know.  It isn't up at the court's pages (but those usually lag by a day), it isn't up at GZLegal (but that hasn't been updated since the 6th of June), and I know of no news media reports that state it has been published (I have a google Zimmerman aggregator open).

[nomatter_nevermind]

I'm following Rene Stutzman and Kathi Belich on Twitter. Belich is the one whose tweets I've been tagging 'WFTV' on the updates, since her name isn't widely known. I expect they will have the news as soon as anyone. They are probably both at the courthouse now.

[nomatter_nevermind]

About 6:08, Kathi Belich tweeted 'no ruling yet'.

[nomatter_nevermind]

I'm wondering if Nelson's chambers have a bathroom with a bathtub. After all the aggravation West gave her, she might have taken a warm bath to relax, and fell asleep . . .

[ding7777]

Does Judge Nelson have clerks to (help) write her decision or does she do it all herself?

[jjr495]

I think the Florida Supreme Court is saying pretty much the same thing in Martinez V State (761 So. 2d 1074; 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1218; 25 Fla. L. Weekly S 471)So I guess Zimmerman or W11 could authenticate what was said.

Oops. Sorry. Just learning how to properly use LexisNexis. I should have read the footnote at the end of the paragraph I quoted.

5 We do not address the situation where an expert witness professionally skilled in understanding inaudible and indistinguishable tape recordings testifies that the transcript is an accurate rendition of the tape recording. See Henry v. State, 629 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Harris v. State, 619 So. 2d 340, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The considerations and procedures used in such cases to determine if a transcript is admissible are beyond the scope of this opinion.

And Henry v State reads:

In regard to admissibility of the transcript of a tape, the law of Florida requires authentication by one of two methods. The person who prepared the transcript could testify that he witnessed the events recited in the transcript and thus had personal knowledge that the transcript was an accurate rendition of the tape-recording, or an expert witness professionally skilled in understanding indistinguishable taped conversations could testify that the transcript was an accurate rendition of the tape-recording

So it does seem that Florida may be different in allowing speech experts to provide transcriptions.

[RickyJim]

Did Reich supply any evidence that he is "an expert witness professionally skilled in understanding indistinguishable taped conversations".

[DebFrmHell]

I don't know what they think. They might think different things.

I remember back at a hearing in February or March BDLR can up with the two voice theory, the last scream being Martin's and that comes from H & H? 

[jjr495]

I remember back at a hearing in February or March BDLR can up with the two voice theory, the last scream being Martin's and that comes from H & H?

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.