Author Topic: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded  (Read 4105 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« on: June 22, 2013, 08:07:59 AM »
Order Excluding Reich and Owen

Nelson bases her order on the fact that the application of not new or novel methods, and that the trustworthiness of the testimony is especially important for experts, as the jury will naturally assume that the scientific principle underlying the experts conclusions are valid.

Edited to add a paragraph summarizing the basis of the court's order.

[Added by TalkLeft: I have moved the comments on the Court's Frye Order here, and started a new thread for comments about it.]
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 02:06:37 PM by TalkLeft »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2013, 08:22:19 AM »
I read Nelson's ruling.  I couldn't have done better.  Are all you Nelson haters going to apologize?   :D

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2013, 08:36:56 AM »
Edited to add a paragraph summarizing the basis of the court's order.

I suggest editing it again. The paragraph doesn't make sense.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2013, 08:45:40 AM »
I suggest editing it again. The paragraph doesn't make sense.

As you know, the time for editing has passed.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2013, 08:50:51 AM »
My guess is, as Jeralyn has posted earlier, the State will not appeal the Frye ruling. It was very revealing when Wesley White testified that Corey was angry with him for bringing her the Zimmerman case. I think they want this mess to be over as quickly as possible.

Offline woodchuck64

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2013, 09:00:09 AM »
Quote
"Although the aural perception and spectral analysis are not new or novel, their application by the State's witnesses to the samples from the 911 call in this case is a scientific technique that is new and novel."
(page 10)

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought F. Leatherman might have a point when he argued that Frye goes no further than excluding new or novel, and a scientific technique that is not new or novel is very likely to be permissible.  I'm impressed that Nelson correctly recognizes that an established scientific technique has to be used within its own limitations; otherwise garbage-in garbage-out.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2013, 09:07:43 AM »
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought F. Leatherman might have a point when he argued that Frye goes no further than excluding new or novel, and a scientific technique that is not new or novel is very likely to be permissible.  I'm impressed that Nelson correctly recognizes that an established scientific technique has to be used within its own limitations; otherwise garbage-in garbage-out.

Nelson used Ramirez, which adds some of the Daubert considerations following "passing Frye" (accepted methodology).  The state failed at the application step of Ramirez.

I don't remember the case, but I recall a short post in an exchange between you and I where I mentioned Ramirez and a later case that receded from Ramirez.  The outcome may have been different if Nelson had applied the later case.

Edit: oops!  The previous exchange wasn't with you, it was with jjr495.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2013, 09:09:28 AM »
I think the judge recognized that the issue was whether there are recognized scientific tests for identifying scream source versus ordinary speech source, not speech versus speech.  That came though in the hearing despite the bumbling presentation by the defense. 
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 09:11:09 AM by RickyJim »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2013, 09:22:09 AM »
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought F. Leatherman might have a point when he argued that Frye goes no further than excluding new or novel, and a scientific technique that is not new or novel is very likely to be permissible.  I'm impressed that Nelson correctly recognizes that an established scientific technique has to be used within its own limitations; otherwise garbage-in garbage-out.

Post noting the Ramirez Case

Quoting from the Ramirez case:

the burden is on the proponent of the evidence to prove the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principles and the testing procedures used to apply that principle to the facts of the case at hand.


The post also points out the Castillo case, which recedes from Ramirez.  Looking at the post (but not the authority, castillo), it may be that Castillo is no help to the state in the Zimmerman case, as Castillo may relax the "scientificness" of Frye and Ramirez, but not relax the application prong.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2013, 09:40:01 AM »
I'm confused by this.

Quote
Mr. Owen testified that he was able to detect these words by commonly-used digital enhancement and transcription software.

This is at the end of a paragraph about Dr. Reich. Is 'Mr. Owen' an error for 'Dr. Reich'? I didn't think Owen claimed to have detected any 'extra' words. Also, this says that Owen detected the same words Reich did, while the first sentence of the paragraph says no witness except Reich heard those words.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2013, 10:08:11 AM »
I'm confused by this.

This is at the end of a paragraph about Dr. Reich. Is 'Mr. Owen' an error for 'Dr. Reich'? I didn't think Owen claimed to have detected any 'extra' words. Also, this says that Owen detected the same words Reich did, while the first sentence of the paragraph says no witness except Reich heard those words.
Owen detected words on the 911 call, but I also don't remember him detecting words on the NEN call. It could well have been in the email that the court received during Owen's testimony.
Also, technically, Reich heard the words while Owen detected the words using software.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2013, 10:17:00 AM »
Owen detected words on the 911 call, but I also don't remember him detecting words on the NEN call. It could well have been in the email that the court received during Owen's testimony.
Also, technically, Reich heard the words while Owen detected the words using software.

That makes sense. Thank you.

ETA: The sentence before the one I quoted, is about the words Reich heard on the 911 recording. I think what Nelson was saying is that Reich heard words on both recordings, and Owen detected the ones on the 911 recording.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 10:21:39 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2013, 10:27:49 AM »
My guess is, as Jeralyn has posted earlier, the State will not appeal the Frye ruling. It was very revealing when Wesley White testified that Corey was angry with him for bringing her the Zimmerman case. I think they want this mess to be over as quickly as possible.
To continue my speculation on why the State won't appeal the Frye ruling, I think Corey overcharged Zimmerman to get a plea. Then they tried to force an immunity hearing to possibly end everything. I think they were unhappy when O'Mara decided against the immunity hearing. They have slow rolled the discovery, hoping that the cell phone stuff wouldn't be made public before they lost.  BDLR and Mantei put up a good front in court, but Guy always looks to me like he doesn't want to be there. Finally, as Jeralyn pointed out, they have opposed every motion for continuance.
It seems that Corey is unwilling to take it on the chin and drop the charges. Will Nelson find the courage to stop it after the State rests, or will it be left on the six jurors to take the heat?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2013, 11:14:06 AM »
Does anyone know by what communications channel the order was released? Nelson told West that if she didn't finish it on Friday, he wouldn't get it until Monday. That turned out not to be the case.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2013, 11:20:17 AM »
It was emailed.
Quote
Copies electronically served to:
Mark M. O'Mara, Esquire
Donald R. West, Esquire
Bernie de la Rionda, Esquire
John Guy, Esquire
Richard w. Mantei, Esquire
Office of the State Attorney

 

Site Meter
click
tracking