TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Court Matters => Topic started by: RickyJim on June 03, 2013, 12:38:56 PM

Title: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 03, 2013, 12:38:56 PM
Announcement.
 (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/noh_060613.pdf)
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Against State Attorney's Officefor Discovery Violations and
Request for Judicial Inquiry Into Violations
Frye Hearing
Defendant's Sealed Confidential Motion to Maintain Anonymity and Confidentiality of Certain
Witnesses

The last one has me guessing.  Does that mean these people will testify behind a curtain?  Could they be people from Miami who will testify as to Trayvon's bad character?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: unitron on June 03, 2013, 02:55:43 PM
Matbe those witnesses are from the Miami school system police department.

Wouldn't that be fun.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: DiwataMan on June 04, 2013, 09:31:48 AM
Just wondering what people here think about that motion.

I asked:
Why is this motion Sealed & Confidential? What’s in there the defense does not want you to see? I’m not so concerned right now myself with the part “to Maintain Anonymity and Confidentiality of Certain Witnesses”[or who they are]. My concern right now is why we can’t see this motion. Redaction has always been a part of this case so why not do that here?

I’m also wondering how they are going to deal with this at the hearing. Will it be handled in chambers?

Pugfrench asks:
Could someone who has an account in the talkleft GZ forum ask jeralyn about confidential witnesses and the law surrounding them, particularly having to do with defense witnesses?
http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/defendants-sealed-confidential-motion-to-maintain-anonymity-and-confidentiality-of-certain-witnesses/#comment-14586
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: MJW on June 04, 2013, 11:45:37 AM
The court's "detailed case view" for Zimmerman's case shows a State's Motion to Compel Discovery filed June 3rd. No information yet on what they want to compel. Knowing BDLR's ham-fisted style, I wouldn't be more than slightly surprised if he's asking for any video showing TM's friends beating up a homeless man, in an attempt to rub O'Mara's nose in his misstatement. Well, maybe that's going too far even for BDLR.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on June 04, 2013, 12:18:40 PM
The court's "detailed case view" for Zimmerman's case shows a State's Motion to Compel Discovery filed June 3rd. No information yet on what they want to compel. Knowing BDLR's ham-fisted style, I wouldn't be more than slightly surprised if he's asking for any video showing TM's friends beating up a homeless man, in an attempt to rub O'Mara's nose in his misstatement. Well, maybe that's going too far even for BDLR.

I doubt that.  It is something that he would enjoy, IMO.  Just like I think that delivering that .BIN file the way he did is his version of "you want the original, here is your original."
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 06, 2013, 02:39:16 AM
Why is this motion Sealed & Confidential? What’s in there the defense does not want you to see?

My guess is they want to avoid, for as long as possible, any public controversy over the 'snitches get stitches' problem.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 07:28:04 AM
So did she say those witnesses can't be anonymous or what?  Since she denied a motion we don't know the details of, I am confused.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 07:38:26 AM
So did she say those witnesses can't be anonymous or what?  Since she denied a motion we don't know the details of, I am confused.

My impression is that she will interview the witnesses in chambers, before ruling.

White is showing Bernardo to be an angry man who asks misleading questions.  Bernardo's stated objective in cross-examination of White is to show that he has bias or animus.  How that matters is a mystery to me, as Bernardo objected to White getting into the substance of the evidence-sandbagging issue, as White has no firsthand knowledge.  Now Bernardo is trying a scorched earth action against White.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 07:46:35 AM
"Did you make a negative remark about the SA office?"

"No, I made a statement of fact." regarding what Corey would be remembered for, which would be the good things she had done, the promises she kept.

White is a very confident witness.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 07:51:57 AM
BDLR can ask White all about how he met Kreibos (Sp?) but O'Mara can't ask Crump how he found out about DeeDee.  Am I right?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 07:53:54 AM
BDLR can ask White all about how he met Kreibos (Sp?) but O'Mara can't ask Crump how he found out about DeeDee.  Am I right?

Yes.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 08:05:31 AM
White says he didn't contact Bernardo about the evidence, because he did not think Bernardo would give a truthful answer, if, in fact, Bernardo had withheld the evidence.  He contacted O'Mara as the most expedient means to find out if the state had fulfilled its discovery obligation.  Makes sense to me.

I think Bernardo's intention to make White look bad is not going to be realized.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 08:19:02 AM
But why is White's bias important?  I agree that Kruidbos' would be.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: Cylinder on June 06, 2013, 08:24:11 AM
The stare down.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 08:30:57 AM
But why is White's bias important?  I agree that Kruidbos' would be.

Bernardo could argue that White either took or allowed an improper response to what Kruidbos told him.  In short, that had the state been informed, rather that informing O'Mara, that any deficiency in turnover of evidence would have been remedied.

I think he's going to argue that anyway, but if White has animus against Bernardo, then Bernardo's going to argue that White is looking for ways to hurt the state.

Bernardo is going on to a new source of information on White, a Mr. Hughes.  Bernardo asks if White ever said that Corey would rather have him outside, pissing in (complaining about the SAO)

Bernardo accuses White of grandstanding for a run against Corey in four years.  Heck, Bernardo is giving White more face time by his own examination.  O'Mara asks if the "pissing in" conversation was about the Corey / de la Rionda retirement.  White doesn't recall.

Nelson looks very unhappy.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 08:34:03 AM
Kruidbos must have something really bad to say about the prosecution for Bernie to try so hard to undermine K's lawyer.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 08:59:45 AM
GPS, GPS.  Maybe we will finally learn something about what happened to it.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 09:00:15 AM
Kruidbos sworn in.  The state has a copy of Cellebrite.  Cellebrite is used to extract information from cell phones.  He doesn't know when the state obtained the Cellebrite material.  Kruidbos printed a report for FDLE in late 2012 of early 2013.  The software/hardware system costs about $8,000.  A report from a phone runs about 900 pages.  These 900 pages are human readable materials.  Photos, texts, location data, browser history in part.

O'Mara brings up the existence of GPS information depending on the phone.  Kruidbos confirms, and that the phone may record information about which cell towers are being hit.  Kruidbos says that GPS on a phone is triggered on an "as demanded" basis, and it is not unusual for a GPS-equipped phone to have gaps of days in GPS data.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 09:05:25 AM
I have never heard of an UFD file.  Is that a Cellebrite file format?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 09:12:41 AM
Kruidbos told O'Steen that he (Kruidbos) was concerned the report was incomplete, and he (Kruidbos) sought the source file BIN file.  Kruidbos refers to it as a UFD file.  Kruidbos says it requires software to read the BIN/UFD file.  Kruidbos hasn't opened such a file - O'Mara is trying to get entered into evidence that the BIN/UFD file is not human readable.

Original report from FDLE was incomplete, in Kruidbos' preliminary opinion.  He expressed this concern to O'Steen.  O'Steen said "let's call Bernie."  This in late 2012 or early 2013 period.  IIRC this sort of lines up with the state sending the phone to California.  Bernie's suggestion was "Call FDLE and request the BIN/UFD file."  Kruidbos got the source file shortly thereafter.  UFD file was 2.3 Gb in size.  The entire folder that FDLE had provided earlier as 100Mb, 1/23rd the size of the source file that Kruidbos now had in hand.

Analysis required use of two plug-ins (software) and FDLE guided Kruidbos in this matter.  All of the information is now available - early January 2013.  Folder of extracted materials was 3.5Gb, vs. initial report of 100Mb.  Reviewed info with O'Steen, told him how to distinguish deleted files and "export to Excel" function to catalog text messages.  Sounds like Kruidbos tried to organize all this material for convenient review.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 09:14:01 AM
I have never heard of an UFD file.  Is that a Cellebrite file format?

It'd be a phone file.  Cellebrite is used to analyze files that are in the UFD format.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 09:14:18 AM
I wonder just when does the phone decide it needs GPS info.  Would a phone hidden in a pocket be able to get that info?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 09:18:20 AM
I wonder just when does the phone decide it needs GPS info.  Would a phone hidden in a pocket be able to get that info?

The user decides, sort of.  If GPS is enabled for photo tagging, then when you take a photo, the phone will do GPS.  Likely similar if you use the phone/broswer to look for nearby restaurant.  There may be other user activities that benefot from GPS.  A phone in a pocket will get the GPS signal.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 09:28:51 AM
I get the sinking feeling - there is no useful GPS on either Zimmerman's of Martin's phone.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 09:31:12 AM
While answering RJ, I missed remarking that the phone contained picture of naked underage girls.  This sets aside the issue the photo of Martin in some public place with one (short) girl.

Kruidbos gave Bernardo the 900 page report with a thumb drive of all the reports (3.5 Gb, plus 100 Mb original, etc.), and Bernardo said that the plan was to have FDLE run the report again so that Kruidbos would not have to testify about having this information.  Bernardo was scheming then, to put the onus on FDLE for any shortcoming in forensic analysis, even though SAO had done a better forensic analysis.  I'm thinking this all went down in January.

O'Steen called Kruidbos back to the office with O'Steen, Bernardo, and prosecutor Guy.  All were present as Kruidbos described what he had extracted from the BIN/UFD file.  Kruidbos asked what would be happening.  Bernardo said that SAO could send the source file to defense.  Bernardo asked how much is the Cellebrite, Kruidbos told him $8,000.  "Did Brenardo say anything about the defense can buy their own copy of Cellebrite?" (my paraphrase of question).  Kruidbos does not recall.  Yet another conversation, location services portion of report.  Bernardo was there, maybe O'Steen.  There is an Excel spreadsheet that has holes in the GPS locator activity.  I'm thinking this went down in late January, Maybe February.  All of the analytical activity, copies, meetings, etc. appear to me to have taken place over a few weeks time.

Rich Commando (Edit to add: this is Kruidbos direct supervisor) was told that Kruidbos thought the report (to defense) was incomplete.  Kruidbos was told "good find."  Commando is no longer with SAO.  Is Kruidbos aware of FDLE activity making a new report from the BIN/UFD file.  May 24 meeting with Bernardo.  Asks if FDLE had redone the report from the bigger source file, and Bernardo says "yes."
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 09:41:44 AM
Kruidbos notices that what was submitted to defense was missing some text messages.

I think (but wasn't paying attention) that FDLE report of around May was the incomplete version provided to defense.

O'Mara asks why Kruidbos is coming forward.  Kruidbos said he had concerns that the information was not provided.  Bernardo said that FDLE was going to provide a report, and that SAO was going to turn over the source file.  Kruidbos was concerned.  He was not concerned that he would personally be held to account in court (my paraphrase), but might be in trouble if it was ever discovered that the state filed to turnover evidence (good sense - sh*t rolls downhill).

Why did Kruidbos pick White?  Good lawyer.  Any concern that White had an axe to grind? No.  Did you even know if White had an axe to grind?  I suspected he did, based on his departure e-mail.  Did that play into your decision to go to White as opposed to anybody else?  No.  Good questions, great to get this out on direct exam.

Do you, Kruidbos have an axe to grind?  Were you going to be fired?  I had no knowledge of that.  O'Mara says, "I mean, before all this?"  Kruidbos can't identify any unspoken reason to bring this to White's attention?

Kruidbos didn't know if O'Mara had the information until after White contacted O'Mara.

What concerns does Kruidbos have now?  That he'll lose his job.  Was it worth it?  Yes.  All of the information being shared is important to the process of fair trial.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 09:55:53 AM
Bernardo cross exam.  All of the data was turned over to defense?  Kruidbos says he doesn't know.  Bernardo says you were concerned that not all of the data had been turned over.  Kruidbos says he didn't know for sure.

Bernardo says that source file contains everything.  Reports can be generated from the source file.  Kruidbos has no evidence as to whether or not the source file was turned over.

Bernardo says that Kruidbos did not tell Guy, or Bernardo, or Corey.  So, how would O'Mara know this in a deposition of a witness in April 25?  Kruidbos was not aware that a witness was questioned in April re: texts of purchase of a gun.

White objects - argumentative and repetitious.  Nelson calms Bernardo down.  Bernardo says Corey has an open door policy.  Kruidbos says he was not comfortable using that open door.  White objects again, as Bernardo misstates the witness's testimony.  Nelson gets testy with White.  Wants objections in the proper form.

Bernardo says that he told Kruidbos that FDLE / Brenton would analyze the BIN file and forward a report to defense.  Bernardo asks Kruidbos has even said he was going to hide the evidence.  Kruidbos says you said two different things, and he (Kruidbos) wasn't sure what had happened.

None of this passing the evidence around helps the state.  The state is one entity, and any internal issues of communications and competence, etc. do not provide reason for failure to produce evidence.  Anyway, Bernardo is trying to make this "not Kruidbos territory" because Kruidbos is not an expert.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 10:06:41 AM
Kruidbos is doing well.  Bernardo's excitement and accusations aren't fazing Kruidbos at all.

Were you aware that defense had their own IT person? Yes.  Do you have a clue what they were doing, had done?  Nope.

Bernardo wants to know if there is any accusation that Bernado requested any deletions.  Kruidbos says that no such request came from Bernardo.  "Dleted" is just a characterization of the material in the UFD file.  Kruidbos says he never accused Bernardo to do anything wrong.  Did you ever meeting With O'Mara?  Yes, by phone, a few days ago, to describe how the software would work?  Bernardo asks did you ever contact us before contacting O'Mara?  No.  White objects as the question being argumentative.  Nelson overruled.  O'Mara objects as to relevance.  Nelson overrules this too, I think.  Call was yesterday or day before.  Bernardo inquires how the call came to occur.  White called Kruidbos.  Kruidbos did not initiate contact with O'Mara.  Kruidbos never questioned the propriety of this call.  Bernardo again wonders why Kruidbos didn't attempt to discuss this with SAO.

Kruidbos did not transfer any data or files to Kruidbos.

I think Bernardo's argument is that O'Mara was able to extract the information from the BIN file, therefore turnover of the BIN file represents a complete turnover.

After all that, Bernardo asks why would Kruidbos have any concern about being fired.  He hasn't done anything wrong.

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 10:07:17 AM
I suppose Bernie does have a legitimate point of how could O'Mara know things in April if he only had the binary file with that info.  When did O'Mara get the bin file?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 10:17:57 AM
Bernardo tries to make it that Kruidbos doesn't get along with his boss.  Kruidbos says he and his boss have a very cordial working relationship.

Bernardo says that Kruidbos access to drives had been curtailed; that his authority as to purchasing had been curtailed; he had 10 people reporting to him, reduced to 2.  Work hours changes - no short lunch to get out early.  Had to produce a job description, list of projects, had to document when computer equipment was mover or reassigned (that was already done) ... Bernardo is trying to paint Kruidbos as disgruntled.

Kruidbos was questioned on leakage of personal information relating to a health matter of a state employee.  Bernardo asks if Kruidbos was happy or unhappy about that discussion.  Kruidbos doesn't understand.  Next question is whether Bernardo treated him fairly - yes.  What about Ms. Peach (some other player)?  No, she was accusatory.  Stupid question, were you happy about being accused?  White raises a relevance objection, overruled by Nelson.  Materiality?  Same, Bernardo can continue.

Bernardo attempts to connect the accusation about a health leak to Kruidbos informing White of a concern about possible withholding of evidence from Zimmerman.

Bernardo asks if Kruidbos is aware that defense was invited to go to Cellebrite in NJ?  No.  Lots of repetitive questions.  Bernardo chronically cuts off the witness answer.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 10:21:16 AM
Zimmerman is clearly no Kruidbos.  I can't conceive the O'Mara would allow his client to undergo this sort of thing.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 10:26:07 AM
Bernardo now tries to get Kruidbos to say that the purpose of Kruidbos work was to facilitate SAO "cataloging" work.  Kruidbos says that the filter and search functions were only part of what he'd done.

Bernardo says that O'Mara was releasing things to the public.  Bernardo is saying that O'Mara had all the information.  O'Mara says that "he (Bernardo) just makes it up."  Bernardo modifies this to O'Mara having some but not all information.  I think this is Bernardo trying to conflate the BIN file and the contents of a SIM card.

Kruidbos clarifies somewhat, that this information was on .DB files  Was able to extract without Kruidbos or FDLE.  Bernardo succeeds in conflating these again.  A third party application generated the .DB file.

Bernardo needs a moment to review his notes.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 10:37:16 AM
So O'Mara explains that he had info on the gun sale from a Feb. 2013 report from the FDLE.  However other texts and photos were only in the bin and not possessed by the defense until later.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
Bernardo next goes off on breach of confidentiality.  Objection from White on relevance.

Redirect by O'Mara.  Kruidbos asked if he knew that the state had a phone report in March 2012, but did not turn it over to defense until September 2012?  No.  Defense got nothing from the phone until after an August evidence review where they saw the phone was working.

If Kruidbos suspicion was incorrect, this issue would resolve simply.

O'Mara asks whether Bernardo reached out to Kruidbos?  No.  Turn of the tables.  If Kruidbos is to be dinged for not communicating, so should the boss be dinged.

O'Mara clears up the April 25 deposition question.  The texts relating to the gun appeared in February production by the state.  O'Mara now asks Kruidbos to describe the advice O'Mara gave Kruidbos as to testimony.  None.

Was Kruidbos questioned about any financial information, in particular the retirement funding.  That had been "leaked," or a public records request right at the time the funding increase.  Corey didn't think Kruidbos had been a source of a leak.  Kruidbos prepared an e-mail to O'Steen and Bernardo about the difference between the report sent to defense and the report Cellebrite prepared by Kruidbos.  Subject does not identify the case name, due to SAO policy to avoid making traceable information in e-mail.  Sidebar.   Hahahahah.  Nelson does not want sunshine.

O'Mara allowed to ask if the e-mail was sent. Yes, January 23rd.  So, O'Steen and Bernardo knew the reports were different.  Witness is excused.  Break for lunch.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 10:49:58 AM
Only the Frye hearing left on the agenda? 
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 12:00:55 PM
West says defense still hasn't received Kruidbos's big report of the extracted data from Martin's phone
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 12:08:14 PM
O'Mara calls co-counsel West to the witness stand.  Going through the timeline of defense discovery.

August, 2012 - see the phone, it works, assume they can get stuff from SIM card.
Sept 26, FDLE provides the report that it had prepared.  This is the first time this report is seen.
Defense knew or was told that phone internal memory was locked out.  Learned in November, December timeframe that the phone had been shipped to Santa Barbarba Sheriff office, where phone was unlocked.  Late December, early January got a disk represented as a data file, but it wasn't of any value.  The state and FDLE advised that data recover was a practical impossibility.  Cellebrite came into the picture.

West says that defense was told it couldn't participate (not sure if this comes from Cellebrite or the SAO), so no sense in going just to stand around and watch.  Report is January 14 or thereabouts.  West describes history of information receipt.

Sept 2012 - short report from FDLE on SIM card
Dec 2012 - short report from SB Sheriff on "swipe code" unlocking
Jan 2013 - report from FDLE, but did not contain the source/BIN file
Feb 22, 2013 - 2nd report from FDLE, including data/source/BIN file

Brenton directed West to Bernardo, for all discovery issues.

Difference between January and February reports was all in the nature of formatting, titleblock, according to Brenton.  Brenton was deposed.

Defense did make an unavailing effort to view source data.

West was looking for text messages based on Witness 8's representation that some of her text messages were missing.  West mentioned to O'Mara that some information may be missing from state production.  So, April 25 Motion for specific discovery.

How would having the complete phone reports in January have assisted us?  Hard to estimate how much time that would have saved us, or how much prejudice?  Defense still doesn't have the reports generated by Kruidbos and provided to Bernardo.  Defense spent a lot of time and money trying to obtain information from the source file.  This guy is a licensed Cellebrite analyst, but not using same version of software.  Maybe government agencies get more "access" than private purchasers of the software.  West estimates 50-100 hours, over a long interval, by many different people.

Defense received additional information on June 4.  More than 1000 pages.  Certain bookmark/tabs to facilitate cross referencing between reports.  More than 4000 images.  West says that this production has not been reviewed.

O'Mara says he will be filing another motion to continue.  Defense still doesn't have a handle on what information was contained on the phone, nevermind follow-up investigation, such as locating and interviewing witnesses, etc.

Cross exam by Bernardo.  Who was the consultant.  Connor.  When was he listed as a witness?  Bernardo asks if defense has Connor's report.  West says that the reciprocal discovery includes reports prepared by Connor, probably in the last two or three weeks.  Bernardo sounds as though he is going to argue that this is late production.  What a bizarre burden shift - nonsense.  The state had the information in the first place.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 12:17:08 PM
uh oh. west is pissed.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: Redbrow on June 06, 2013, 12:22:09 PM
BDLR is arguing like a 5 year old!

I can't believe BDLR is trying to justify his withholding evidence by trying to claim the defense did the same thing after the fact. If the state truly believed there was any withholding THEY WOULD/SHOULD HAVE FILED FORMALLY!
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 12:23:25 PM
Anybody think Bernie's, "The defense does it too." is working?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 12:24:27 PM
I was pleased to see West finally tell Bernardo that the defense has a different burden wrt discovery.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 12:25:57 PM
Anybody think Bernie's, "The defense does it too." is working?

In a perfect world it wouldn't. In the world where Nelson is looking for any sort of flimsy reason to grasp on to--it's working fine.

Of course, in Nelson's world they didn't even need to have the hearing.

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 12:29:28 PM
Nelson is a  [redacted].

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 12:30:16 PM
Bernardo is trying to make all digital files equivalent.  The 2.3Gb phone data file being the same as a pdf of 10 pages of text.  Bernardo insinuating that if information is produced on a CD, then it isn't human readable.

Bernardo's bottom line is "the evidence is in there," referring to the source file.  Apparently, depending on the skill of the person and capability of the software, more or less of the data in the source file is visible.  Now Bernardo is insinuating that the failure of defense expert Connor to extract information isn't the state's problem.  Bernardo says "you considered this your work product, right?"  West says, "No, we produced it to you."  Now he says it took 6 months to disclose, and maybe the state should be seeking sanctions.

West was laughing, then, sort of called on it, said this situation wasn't funny.  "We caught you hiding information," says West, "and confronted you with that."  Pretty heated.

Brenton will be called to present the state's defense to this issue.  Again with the threat of "we ought to file for sanctions too."  sh*t or get off the pot Bernardo.

Bernardo has no further questions.  Redirect by O'Mara.  How did defense get report from FDLE?  West doesn't recall, but thinks it came from SAO in electronic format the day of a hearing.  This was about a month after Bernardo told Kruidbos that FDLE would prepare a report for defense.  O'Mara asks if Bretton has prepared any report.  West says the February version, and the recent June 4 submission.

How long did Mr. Connor work on extraction?  West doesn't know, but is confident it is in excess of 25 hours.

O'Mara wants to call Bernardo to the stand.

Nelson now complaining that this has gone on too long (it's her fault for letting irrelevant testimony), and all this motion is about is money - this hearing is concluded.  O'Mara says this is not just money damages.  If Bernardo in fact lied, it is criminal contempt.  Nelson says that can happen after trial too.  It's not an issue of witness or evidence exclusion.  She concludes the sanctions portion of the hearing sua sponte.  She's pissed!!
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: Redbrow on June 06, 2013, 12:31:31 PM
In a perfect world it wouldn't. In the world where Nelson is looking for any sort of flimsy reason to grasp on to--it's working fine.

Of course, in Nelson's world they didn't even need to have the hearing.

Or she can just put a stop to this matter and push it off until after the trial.

They had plenty of time to go after George and Shellie for a matter that was a more likely candidate for post trial but not for the state prosecutor committing outright fraud?!?!?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 12:44:02 PM
Or she can just put a stop to this matter and push it off until after the trial.

They had plenty of time to go after George and Shellie for a matter that was a more likely candidate for post trial but not for the state prosecutor committing outright fraud?!?!?

I'm really not sure why I'm watching this--there's no mystery involved. She's going to bend over to give the state whatever they want plus whatever extra she can give them. MOM and West are screwed.

It's bringing to mind an episode of L&O where the judge wanted to 'help' Jack make a point in the trial of a drunk driver. Remember it? Jack didn't even have to say "Objection!" before the judge would sustain it and cut off the defense.

I understand the State of Florida has invested a lot in GZ being guilty of something, but do they have to be this obvious about it?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: Redbrow on June 06, 2013, 12:55:55 PM
Nelson doesn't have 15 minutes to spare when it is time to put BDLR on the hot seat for a hearing she scheduled to deal with this matter but then she take a 20 minute break?
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 12:57:24 PM
Dr. Nakasone of the FBI next up.  He will say the experts who claim they can make comparisons are FOS.  AFAIK.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 01:00:41 PM
Dr. Nakasone of the FBI next up.  He will say the experts who claim they can make comparisons are FOS.  AFAIK.

Succinctly put, RJ.

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: Redbrow on June 06, 2013, 01:02:10 PM
Corey got the all clear from Nelson and has returned to her kangaroo court.

Tony Pipitone ‏@TonyPipitone 22m
Angela Corey just returned to the courtroom, now that call for possible contempt of her top prosecutor is put off until post-trial.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 01:12:30 PM
Dr. N says they need strong guidelines to make sure of proper use of the technology in a courtroom situation.  IOW, clowns like Reich and Owen shouldn't be paid attention to.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 01:14:47 PM
On to the show hearing before Nelson concludes that the state's voice ID experts may testify.

First witness is live in court.  Defense witness Nakasone (phonetic on my part)  FBI employee, stationed in Quantico

FBI expert.  Seems reasonably well credentialled for the technical issue in this case.

West asks for Nakasone opinion about state of the art in speaker recognition.  He says there is a reasonable reliability in the technology, but the technology is fragile if used by untrained or reckless users who do not possess training, and there is a consensus to establish guidelines to allow admission of testimony.  There is a standards working group, working on guidelines for forensic speaker recognition technology.  He is on the group.  Group is carefully selected based on integrity, publication of research, academic and technical prowess.  Meets twice a year, NIST and Biometric Center of Excellence in the FBI sponsor the committee.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 06, 2013, 01:20:38 PM
This NIST discussion is a setup to skewer Owen and his software. I didn't see Owen in the NIST evaluation list.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 01:21:24 PM
I hope he will be asked if Owen's program has been submitted to his working group for evaluation.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 01:51:04 PM
I hope West gets him to discuss the problem of comparing screams with non screams for speaker identification.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 06, 2013, 02:23:40 PM
Nakasone volunteered that the scream sounded like a person facing an imminent threat of death.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 02:24:43 PM
Is this guy (Nakasone sp) acting as his own expert or is he sort of representing the NIST group?

Reason I'm asking has to do with how easily Nelson will be able to bulldoze his testimony in her zeal to allow the state's to have their audio expert--you know, the one that claims GZ shouted "there can be only one" or whatever the heck he said he heard.

I'm thinking one guy is easy to dismiss/ignore, but the whole NIST group is a little more difficult.

So far he's been really good though, explaining how long the samples need to be, how there can be no other voices in the sample and how stress will effect the voice.
 
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 02:36:52 PM
What is this prosecutor's name?  I think he got nowhere with Nakasone.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 02:38:12 PM
What a lame cross exam.  Algebra uses symbols instead of numbers, right?  No, it uses both, symbols and numbers.  Okay, and you will agree that if the value of the variables is changed, the answer changes?  Mantei is trying to be clever, elicit that the witness recognizes his voice from phone over lunch.  Then he tries to set the standard for accepting an opinion, as lack of certainty.  Pretty short cross exam, compared with direct.

I anticipate that the redirect by West will be brief.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 02:39:21 PM
Is this guy (Nakasone sp) acting as his own expert or is he sort of representing the NIST group?

Reason I'm asking has to do with how easily Nelson will be able to bulldoze his testimony in her zeal to allow the state's to have their audio expert--you know, the one that claims GZ shouted "there can be only one" or whatever the heck he said he heard.

I'm thinking one guy is easy to dismiss/ignore, but the whole NIST group is a little more difficult.

So far he's been really good though, explaining how long the samples need to be, how there can be no other voices in the sample and how stress will effect the voice.

Acting on his own.  His relationship with the standards working group is simply used to establish his bona fides.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 02:42:03 PM
Acting on his own.  His relationship with the standards working group is simply used to establish his bona fides.

Thanks. I was busy with something when he was being introduced and missed most of it.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 06, 2013, 02:43:40 PM
I'm thinking one guy is easy to dismiss/ignore, but the whole NIST group is a little more difficult.


The Frye test is whether the method has 'gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.'

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 02:45:19 PM
Mantei admits his whole point of redirecting the redirect is to try and confuse Dr. N?

Dope.


Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 02:46:59 PM
West asks if an expert said voice ID of this sample is possible, would Nakasone agree.  Nakasone says he would use different terminology.  He would find the (expert's) claim disturbing.  Such ID is not feasible.  A claim to be able to ID the speaker from this sample would probably disturb other scientists as well.

On recross, Mantei tries to get the expert to agree that this sample is okay; that it is acceptable for an expert to opine that the speaker was or was not a certain person, from this sample, using one of the three methods discussed so far in this hearing.

The expert says everybody is entitled to their own opinions.  Expert could have done better by saying his quarrel is with applying the methods to this sample, and reaching a conclusion other than "not enough data to decide."
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 06, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
Expert could have done better by saying his quarrel is with applying the methods to this sample, and reaching a conclusion other than "not enough data to decide."

I don't agree that is better. I would say it's non-responsive, and sounds like the witness is trying to weasel.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 02:51:59 PM
I don't agree that is better. I would say it's non-responsive, and sounds like the witness is trying to weasel.

Except that cboldt boiled an hour plus of testimony into a single sentence that cuts to the heart of why the defense wanted him on the stand.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 02:52:40 PM
I don't agree that is better. I would say it's non-responsive, and sounds like the witness is trying to weasel.

The answer he gave, agreeing, was a walking back of his previous position.

But, as the expert said, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 06, 2013, 02:53:01 PM
I can't believe that it is that easy to satisfy Frye.  Is the prosecution arguing that anybody using the standard 3 methodologies, more or less, should be allowed to testify? 
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 02:58:32 PM
I can't believe that it is that easy to satisfy Frye.  Is the prosecution arguing that anybody using the standard 3 methodologies, more or less, should be allowed to testify?

As long as they say what the prosecution wants the jury to hear? Absolutely!

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 06, 2013, 03:00:21 PM
I can't believe that it is that easy to satisfy Frye.  Is the prosecution arguing that anybody using the standard 3 methodologies, more or less, should be allowed to testify?

Yes.  There is no view of the suitablity of the methodology to the task.  It's like using a microscope to view stars.  As long as microscopes are used for (looking at) SOMETHING, then any testimony that involves looking at, using a microscope, is using good science, no matter what is being looked at.

Nakasone's testimony was that none of the methods are suitable to analyze this sample.  The state argues that the methods are all acceptable, none of them produce results with perfect certainty, therefore the opinion of their experts should come in.

Nelson is going to let it in.  She is clueless on the science, and she does not want to cut off what may be the state's only remaining leg.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 06, 2013, 03:03:52 PM
Yes.  There is no view of the suitablity of the methodology to the task.  It's like using a microscope to view stars.  As long as microscopes are used for (looking at) SOMETHING, then any testimony that involves looking at, using a microscope, is using good science, no matter what is being looked at.

Nakasone's testimony was that none of the methods are suitable to analyze this sample.  The state argues that the methods are all acceptable, none of them produce results with perfect certainty, therefore the opinion of their experts should come in.

Nelson is going to let it in.  She is clueless on the science, and she does not want to cut off what may be the state's only remaining leg.

But but but...we were just a few minutes ago reminded exactly what Frye is!

Meh. Of course she's going to let it in. The decision on the Frye test will be exactly like all her other pro-State rulings.

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 06, 2013, 03:58:39 PM
Yes.  There is no view of the suitablity of the methodology to the task.  It's like using a microscope to view stars.  As long as microscopes are used for (looking at) SOMETHING, then any testimony that involves looking at, using a microscope, is using good science, no matter what is being looked at.

That's arguably true under a literal interpretation of the Frye test, as originally worded.

Defendant's Reply to State Opposition to Evidentiary Hearing (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Defendant%27s%20Reply%20to%20State%27s%20Response%20to%20Defendant%27s%20Motion%20for%20Evidentiary%20Hearing.pdf) cites a Florida Supreme court case, Ramirez v. State, (http://case-law.vlex.com/vid/joseph-j-ramirez-vs-state-florida-appellee-20847844) 810 So. 2d 836 (2001). The decision holds that application to the 'type of evidence' specific to the case is subject to the Frye test, not only the 'underlying principle'.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 12:38:25 AM

YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh4LM9tlbY) of the first hour and a half of the 6/6/13 hearing.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 03:45:44 AM
So did she say those witnesses can't be anonymous or what?  Since she denied a motion we don't know the details of, I am confused.

My impression is that she will interview the witnesses in chambers, before ruling.

'At this time the motion is denied' (6/6/13 hearing, 21:41). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh4LM9tlbY#t=21m41s)

A bit later, Nelson told the lawyer representing the witnesses that he could give her a list of their names (6/6/13 hearing, 22:31). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh4LM9tlbY#t=22m31s)

It seems clear to me that the issue is alive.

 
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 04:04:59 AM
"No, I made a statement of fact." regarding what Corey would be remembered for, which would be the good things she had done, the promises she kept.

Wow, are you spinning that.

The remark was backhanded, highlighting White's criticism of Corey's failure to keep a campaign promise (6/6/13 hearing, 44:52). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh4LM9tlbY#t=44m52s)
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 04:28:48 AM
Wow, are you spinning that.

The remark was backhanded, highlighting White's criticism of Corey's failure to keep a campaign promise (6/6/13 hearing, 44:52). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh4LM9tlbY#t=44m52s)

Yes, good point.  The word "backhanded" didn't enter my mind.  You are right on, that although the punch line of his remark was superficially complimentary, the remark as a whole was critical.

The thought that crossed my mind a couple of time, as Bernardo was grilling White, was how much politics was coming into Nelson's courtroom in a criminal trial.  Simply amazing.  Oh well, it's Nelson's courtroom, and she runs it as she sees fit.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 06:07:23 AM
My impression is that she will interview the witnesses in chambers, before ruling.

'At this time the motion is denied' (6/6/13 hearing, 21:41). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh4LM9tlbY#t=21m41s)

A bit later, Nelson told the lawyer representing the witnesses that he could give her a list of their names (6/6/13 hearing, 22:31). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh4LM9tlbY#t=22m31s)

It seems clear to me that the issue is alive.
What she decides may be crucial.  I think Witness #6 doesn't want to be seen or his name used at trial.  I am just basing my guess on prior behavior.  Witness's #11 and #20 might be the other two represented by the lawyer (Name?) that appeared at the June 6th hearing.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 06:31:51 AM
What she decides may be crucial.  I think Witness #6 doesn't want to be seen or his name used at trial.  I am just basing my guess on prior behavior.  Witness's #11 and #20 might be the other two represented by the lawyer (Name?) that appeared at the June 6th hearing.

Fact witnesses can be compelled to testify.  Nelson can deny them anonymity, and, I think only on motion of defense, compel the witness to appear in court and provide testimony.  Those witnesses should obtain means of self defense and become proficient.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 12:21:43 PM
Nelson can deny them anonymity, and, I think only on motion of defense, compel the witness to appear in court and provide testimony. 

Of course. 6th Amendment. 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor . . .'

Quote
Those witnesses should obtain means of self defense and become proficient.

Or change their names and move to Idaho.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: TalkLeft on June 07, 2013, 10:06:00 PM
She could order the TV cameras not to show their faces while they testify. They do that with jurors all the time. Those in the courtroom can see them but not those watching on TV. Anyone who wants to see the witness' or jurors' faces can wait in line at the courthouse for a seat.

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on June 07, 2013, 11:00:34 PM
She could order the TV cameras not to show their faces while they testify. They do that with jurors all the time. Those in the courtroom can see them but not those watching on TV. Anyone who wants to see the witness' or jurors' faces can wait in line at the courthouse for a seat.

How long do you think it will take before the media will have vetted out those witnesses?  I think John already got some pressure because he gave an interview from behind a partially closed door.  It took but a nanosecond for all of us to get names going by property records.

IMO ONLY.  I think they have every right to be concerned.  Both witnesses and jurors.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 08, 2013, 12:21:06 AM

Videos of 6/6/13 Hearing

Part 1, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh4LM9tlbY) to first recess, 91m 44s

Part 2, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faHgbDdlkv4) Kruidbos to lunch break, 110m 6s

Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: MJW on June 09, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
I would think the witness anonymity ruling could be immediately appealed to the DCA since it's a "cat out of the bag" issue.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: MJW on June 13, 2013, 03:41:37 PM
I see the anonymous witness's attorney, Michael W. Nielsen, filed a notice of appearance (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/June%206%20Notice%20of%20Appearance%20on%20behalf%20of%20Anonymous%20Witness.pdf) for the June 6th hearing. I'm keeping an eye out for any action in the DCA seeking to overturn Judge Nelson's decision to deny anonymity.  I'd think that the fact the witness has his or her own lawyer makes that somewhat more likely.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 13, 2013, 03:49:55 PM
Refresh my memory about what Nelson denied.  I thought she would see the witness in her chambers to discuss it.  Has the defense formally appealed to the DCA? It is hard for me to see how she could refuse to give the witness at least what she gave the potential jurors, only people in the courtroom could see his/her face.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: MJW on June 13, 2013, 04:02:04 PM
Refresh my memory about what Nelson denied.  I thought she would see the witness in her chambers to discuss it.  Has the defense formally appealed to the DCA? It is hard for me to see how she could refuse to give the witness at least what she gave the potential jurors, only people in the courtroom could see his/her face.

There seems to be some confusion about what exactly the judge decided, but she said. "At this time, the motion is denied." That seems to deny the motion, but allow for the possibility she will reconsider. The witnesses shouldn't wait to find out, or they may end up like GZ did with the W9 interview: before their lawyer can attempt to prevent it, the the beans have already been spilled.

As far as I can tell, no one has sought DCA review.
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: MJW on June 13, 2013, 04:10:29 PM
"Detailed Case View (http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=592012CF001083A)":

06/06/2013    MNFD    --COURT.*ORDER - COURT DENIED MOTION.***ORDER - WITNESSES NAMES TO REMAIN
06/06/2013    MNFD    --UNDER SEAL UNTIL THE START OF THE TRIAL. 
Title: Re: June 6th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 14, 2013, 02:04:22 AM
I don't know if anyone needs reminding, but I posted (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2418.msg110380.html#msg110380) on witness anonymity a bit upthread.