Author Topic: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded  (Read 3513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2013, 11:25:24 AM »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2013, 11:27:23 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.

Looks like an e-mail transmission.  What Nelson said she doesn't have is a fax machine (or similar) at home.  She didn;t say whether or not she had e-mail at home.  But, looks as though "at home" isn't the crux of the biscuit.  The date stated in the order is today, Saturday, and the order says "DONE in chambers ..."  So, whatever communication resources are used for official communications from the court (which is e-mail for most of these) is most likely what was used.  I see no facsimile header on the pages.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2013, 11:58:37 AM »
Judge Nelson certain did a competent job of summarizing some fairly technical testimony and teasing out the relevant portions. I would have liked the court to point out that Mr. Owen was unable to describe the foundation of his own software. My competent mechanic doesn't have a PhD, but he can explain to me the purpose of my timing belt, its failure modes, the methods for diagnosing its failure, the troubleshooting tree, etc...


Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2013, 02:10:05 PM »
My thoughts with relevant quotes from the opinion are here. I also linked to the various forum threads on Voice ID, who was screaming and the multiple Frye Hearings.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2013, 02:38:11 PM »
My question is does the court's timing in unleashing this headline signal that the jurors have been rounded up and relocated at this point?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2013, 03:58:35 PM »
My question is does the court's timing in unleashing this headline signal that the jurors have been rounded up and relocated at this point?

I don't think so.  Sequestration in this case has more than one function.  One function is to keep the jurors from press accounts.  The jurors are under order to refrain from viewing the press and receiving communications about the case.  Not that doing this "on your own" is as effective as having a censor between you and the outside world, it may be that the headline is unavoidable - no voice expert.  They'll find that out anyway, and have already sworn to not allow past/outside information (experts said, in the paper, it was Martin) to influence deliberation.  Any harm the experts might have done to the deliberations was already done, before the court excluded them.

Bernardo potentially created a credibility issue for the state by suggesting that the jury might hear from experts.  He didn't have to go there.  Now, if/when no expert appears, some jurors will wonder why not, and from their remarks, will be inclined to think it is because the expert opinions aren't reliable enough for deciding an issue that puts a person's liberty at stake.  That damage is done whether the jurors learn "no experts" today (headline awareness) or by the time they are sent to deliberate on the evidence.

The other function of sequestration is to provide a sense of personal security, so that public reaction to the case, especially the threat of violent retribution, won't influence the jury.  I have my doubts that sequestration can deliver what it "promises" in this area, as the jurors may view any crowds as they enter and leave the courthouse each day.

I think their sequestration will begin at 9 am Monday morning.  Maybe a couple hours earlier, if the court transports them from their homes to the courthouse.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2013, 04:18:15 PM »
Judge Nelson certain did a competent job of summarizing some fairly technical testimony and teasing out the relevant portions. I would have liked the court to point out that Mr. Owen was unable to describe the foundation of his own software. My competent mechanic doesn't have a PhD, but he can explain to me the purpose of my timing belt, its failure modes, the methods for diagnosing its failure, the troubleshooting tree, etc...

Not that I hate to be nitpicky, the remark is offered just as a technical correction.

At the top of page 9, she writes that Wayman found each scream as 50-60 ms of data.  Actually, he described each one second ans having 50-60 chunks with each chunk being 30 ms of data, and each chunk being used to make a point in the GMM "cottonball field."  Still, she has the important principle, that there is not enough information is the sample.  The sample is too small to analyze.

I found the opinion a little confusing on the terms "methodology," "application" and "technique," which aren't clearly defined in the opinion (but may be clearly defined in Ramirez) and may not always be used in exactly the same sense.  That only affects the clarity of, and any potential ambiguity in, her legal analysis.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2013, 05:44:53 PM »
Bernardo potentially created a credibility issue for the state by suggesting that the jury might hear from experts.  He didn't have to go there.

The jury will still likely hear from medical, DNA, and cell phone experts.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2013, 05:51:42 PM »
The jury will still likely hear from medical, DNA, and cell phone experts.

That's a great point.  I'm too deep in the voice stuff, lost sight of the other experts.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Frye Ruling: Voice Experts Excluded
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2013, 05:53:12 PM »
Not that I hate to be nitpicky, the remark is offered just as a technical correction.

At the top of page 9, she writes that Wayman found each scream as 50-60 ms of data.  Actually, he described each one second ans having 50-60 chunks with each chunk being 30 ms of data, and each chunk being used to make a point in the GMM "cottonball field."  Still, she has the important principle, that there is not enough information is the sample.  The sample is too small to analyze.

I found the opinion a little confusing on the terms "methodology," "application" and "technique," which aren't clearly defined in the opinion (but may be clearly defined in Ramirez) and may not always be used in exactly the same sense.  That only affects the clarity of, and any potential ambiguity in, her legal analysis.

She did get that technical piece wrong, but to be fair Wayman also screwed up his technical explanation of the Mel frequency filtering process. He said that higher frequency bins needed to be reduced in energy because humans hear more efficiently at higher frequency. The Mel scale transformation is designed to increase the number of discrete low frequencies because humans are better at distinguishing between low frequencies; the difference between 300 and 400 Hz is more apparent than between 3000 and 3100 Hz. The log is taken of the power of each Mel frequency.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking