All Female Jury to decide Zimmerman case, Opening Statements Monday at 9 am

June 20, 2013

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Good evening:

We have a jury, an all female jury.

B-29
B-76
B-37
B-51
E-6
E-40

The four alternates:

E-54
B-72
E-13
E-28

Two males and two females.

Here’s a link to fauxmccoy’s chart on the jurors.

Those in green made the jury. Those in red were stricken.

I tried hundreds of cases during my 30 year career and never had an all female or an all male jury.

5 of the 6 women are white. One is Hispanic.

5 of the 6 women are mothers.

I would be very worried, if I were George Zimmerman, because I believe those mothers are not going to believe him. I think they are going to hold him accountable for killing an unarmed teenager.

I am unhappy that none of the jurors are black, but I do not believe that is going to affect the final outcome of this case.

I predict GZ will testify because Mark O’Mara did not voir dire the panel of jurors regarding a defendant’s right to remain silent and not testify. When my clients decided not to testify, I always made sure that the jurors understood that my clients were not required to testify and no one could assume that their silence was evidence of guilt.

Judge Nelson announced that counsel will give their opening statements beginning at 9 am EDT on Monday morning.

After she dismissed the remainder of the panel and swore in the jurors, Judge Nelson excused the jury and completed the evidentiary part of the Frye hearing.

Assistant State Attorney Manthei summed up the situation when he said there was nothing novel or new about the methodologies used by the State’s experts. What is new is a move across several different scientific disciplines to establish a universal set of standards to use when attempting to match a recording of an unknown voice to a database of recorded voices of known individuals in order to declare a match.

That is a far more complicated task than listening to a known voice and excluding that known individual as the source of a voice on a recording. There are only two possible sources of the terrified shriek that ends with the shot and it’s not difficult to exclude the armed defendant who admitted firing the fatal shot as the source of that scream.

Manthei added that the State was not responsible for the recent news reports that the defense had an expert who identified GZ as the source of the scream.

And some PJs mentioned hearing that in the news before reporting for jury service.

However, as it turned out, the defense could find no expert to testify to that opinion and the reports were false.

If I were Judge Nelson, I would rule that the State’s experts may testify and express their opinions. The defendant’s objections go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Judge Nelson will issue her ruling after court reconvenes at 9 am tomorrow.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.

Thank you


Zimmerman Frye Hearing Resumed: Rebuttal

June 20, 2013

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Good afternoon:

We have a jury, an all female jury.

B-29
B-76
B-37
B-51
E-6
E-40

The four alternates:

E-54
B-72
E-13
E-28

Two males and two females.

Here’s a link to fauxmccoy’s chart.

Next up is the prosecution’s rebuttal case in the Frye hearing.

They will be presenting one witness, Tom Owen.

Here’s the link to the livestream coverage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52117880/


Zimmerman: Day 8 Liveblogging Jury Selection Completed

June 19, 2013

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Good afternoon:

We have completed liveblogging the 8th day of jury selection.

Bernie de la Rionda spent the day teaching and indoctrinating the panel of 40 prospective jurors (PJs) with the legal foundation of the case that he will present to them in opening statement. Judging by their reaction, he succeeded in building rapport and trust.

The defense has a big mountain to climb tomorrow.

Bernie used a mixture of one-at-a-time voir dire as to the entire group and then switched to what we used to call the Donahue Method after the former TV host, Phil Donahue.

We would never have been allowed to conduct a classroom style multiple-hour education of the panel regarding legal principles as Bernie did.

Judges instruct on the law, not lawyers.

Voir dire means to question.

During his initial questioning of the panel, he asked each individual juror how long they had lived in Seminole County and Florida, their marital status and children, and what they liked to do with their spare time.

Then he used the Donahue Method to question the panel of 40 as a group on the following subjects:

1. Knowledge of the defendant, lawyers, court personnel and witnesses to be called;

2. Familiarity with TV programs about forensics, cops and the law;

3. Difference between direct and circumstantial evidence;

4. Whether anyone was arrested and prosecuted for a crime;

5. Victims of crime, particularly violent crime;

6. Experience with Neighborhood Watch programs;

7. Whether anyone believes they have the right to take the law into their own hands;

8. Whether anyone believes any person by reason of wealth, education, employment, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, language or dress should be treated differently under the law;

9. Whether anyone has been a witness before or served on a jury;

10. Member of law enforcement or knows someone who is;

11. Whether anyone has medical experience or knowledge;

12. Owns a gun, has a license to carry concealed, NRA membership;

13. Whether people who own guns have a responsibility to learn how to use them;

14. Whether anyone is a fitness freak or trained fighter or been in a fight;

15. Whether anyone has special knowledge or training in cell phones, phonetics, linguistics, or DNA testing; and

16. Whether anyone would not be able to look at gruesome photographs for their evidentiary value.

No one was excused today although I believe 2 PJs should be excluded for financial and familial hardship, especially since the trial is expected to last 2-4 weeks and the jury will be sequestered. Both are Hispanic.

B-29 is a married mother with 8 children at home. The oldest is 22. She works as a CNA. She is juror #2 in the box and would be replaced by B-51, a retired white female from Oviedo with a dog and 20-year-old cat. Knows a good deal about the case, but said “I’m not rigid in my thinking.” She moved to Florida from Atlanta and was the Director of a call center for 1,200 employees.

P-67 is an auto mechanic whose job might not be there after the trial. He is 22nd on the list of 40.

The defense will voir dire tomorrow starting at 9 am EDT.

If the defense has not completed questioning the PJs by 2 pm, Judge Nelson will excuse them for the day in order to resume and complete at least the evidentiary portion of the Frye hearing. The prosecution will be presenting one rebuttal witness, Tom Owen.

I doubt she will be ready to issue her decision at the conclusion of the hearing, so look for it early next week, probably Monday.

I will see you all tomorrow morning at 9 am EDT.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.

Thank you


Zimmerman: Day 7 of Jury Selection Completed

June 18, 2013

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Good afternoon:

We have reached the magic number of 40 prospective jurors (PJ) passed for cause on the issues of hardship and exposure to pretrial publicity.

1. B-12
2. B-29
3. B-76
4. B-7
5. B-35
6. B-37
7. B-51
8. B-86
9. E-6
10. E-40
11. E–54
12. E-73
13. M-75
14. B-61
15. B-72
16. E-22
17. E13
18. E-28
19. K-80
20. K-95
21. P-67
22. G-14
23. G-29
24. G-47
25. G-63
26. G-66
27. G-81
28. H-6
29. H-7
30. H-18
31. H-29
32. H-35
33. H-81
34. H-69
35. H-86
36. I-5
37. I-19
38. I-24
39. I-33
40. I-44

As I have previously described the likely process:

When she gets to 40, she will gather that group together seating the PJs in the jury box, and subsequently the benches, in the order in which they were called and likely instruct them to raise their hands indicating an affirmative answer as she asks a series of questions, pausing to record each PJ’s affirmative answer to each question.

For example, she might ask for a show of hands by each PJ who has been a victim of a crime and write down each PJs number who raises their hand.

After she completes her list of questions, the lawyers, starting with Bernie de la Rionda, will question the first PJ on the list (B12) regarding each question she answered affirmatively. After both lawyers have finished with B12, they will pass or challenge her for cause. If she is excused, she will be replaced in the box by PJ B51 (she is 7th in the order).

This process will be repeated with B51 until she is passed or excused for cause. If she is excused, her seat will be taken by B55. If she is passed, the lawyers will question B29, the PJ in the second seat in the box.

This procedure likely will be followed until 30 PJs have been passed for cause.

Then the lawyers will exercise their peremptory challenges, which is usually done secretly with the lawyers passing back and forth a sheet of paper alternately listing a PJ number until one or both sides exhaust their allotment of peremptory challenges.

If one side accepts the jury of 6 before exhausting their peremptories, they retain the right to use a peremptory challenge to excuse the PJ who replaces a member of the jury struck by their opponent after they accepted the jury.

Judge Nelson announced in court that she intends to begin at 9 am EDT and recess at 3:45 pm EDT, if jury selection has not been completed.

She will reconvene court at 4 pm EDT for the State’s rebuttal case in the Frye Hearing.

The State is going to call one witness: Tom Owen.

Jury selection will resume Thursday morning and continue until completed.

Opening statements will follow jury selection.

I estimate Friday morning for opening statements.

See you in court tomorrow morning at 9 am EDT.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.

Thank you


Expert opinions about the death shriek are admissible at trial

June 9, 2013

Saturday, June 9, 2013

Good afternoon:

The defense presented the testimony of two expert witnesses yesterday, Dr. Peter French from the UK and George Doddington from the United States, who agreed with Dr. Nakasone of the FBI Crime Lab that there is insufficient information in the background of the recorded 911 calls with which to form an opinion regarding whether Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman uttered the terrified death shriek.

The three experts also agreed that there is insufficient information to support an opinion regarding whether there are any identifiable words or phrases in the background of those calls.

Note that the three experts have described the prosecution and defense effort to rely on expert witnesses to identify the source of the terrified death shriek, as well as any words or phrases that either of them might have used, as an absence-of-evidence problem. That is, they agreed that the methodologies used by the prosecution experts are generally accepted by audiologists and neither novel nor new.

This conclusion is all that is required to satisfy the Frye rule, since the rule is a counting-heads test that establishes a threshold requirement or legal foundation to introduce an expert opinion that is based on a novel scientific theory or new methodology. The expert’s conclusion is irrelevant.

In other words, there was no need for a Frye hearing since the prosecution experts based their opinions on long accepted methodologies. Therefore, their opinions are admissible.

How much weight should be accorded to those opinions is a separate issue that only the jury can decide.

Defense counsel have focused their effort during the Frye hearing on attacking the validity of the opinions expressed by the prosecution experts. They are going to have to repeat that effort during the trial.

I predicted long ago that expert opinion regarding who uttered the terrified death shriek would not play a significant role in the outcome of the trial.

If I were arguing the State’s case to the jury, I would emphasize the strength of the circumstantial evidence that proves Trayvon Martin uttered the shriek. I would briefly add that the conclusions reached by the prosecution experts independently confirm the circumstantial evidence.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation.


Prosecution experts exclude the defendant as the source of the death shriek

June 7, 2013

Friday, June 7, 2013

Good evening:

The Frye hearing is developing much as I expected it would, although I am surprised by how far afield the testimony has wandered.

The scope of the hearing should be confined to determining whether the methodologies used by the experts are generally accepted by forensic audiologists. Dr. Nakasone, Tom Owen and Dr. Reich agreed that they are and that resolves the Frye inquiry.

The defense presented evidence questioning the accuracy of the results due to the very short (3-second recording) length of time in which the death shriek is not competing with other sounds. However, that argument and the rest of the defense arguments affect the weight that should be given to the results rather than the admissibility of the evidence.

Therefore, we basically watched a full dress rehearsal of the defense case challenging the accuracy of the opinions expressed by Tom Owen and Dr. Reich.

They agreed that the defendant did not utter the death shriek and indeed the circumstantial evidence independently confirms their opinions.

I confess that I had a difficult time hearing what the experts were saying because the audio was fuzzy and cutting in and out.

West’s monotone and stubborn nitpicking instead of focusing on the general acceptance issue, which is the purpose of the Frye hearing was quite annoying.

I think the defense committed a potentially serious tactical error by asking for a Frye hearing this close to trial because they have little or no chance to win and the hearing creates an opportunity for the State to remind everyone that their experts have excluded the defendant as the source of the death shriek.


If I were the judge l would admit expert opinion evidence regarding who uttered the death shriek

June 6, 2013

It’s important to remember that every scientific principle, law, or methodology that is generally accepted in the scientific community today was once a novel theory or new methodology.

The process by which these novel theories and new methodologies become generally accepted in the scientific community can take many years.

It can be extremely frustrating to have to wait for general acceptance to develop in the scientific community when a pressing need exists to use a novel theory or methodology to solve crimes as was the case with applying DNA testing to solve otherwise unsolvable crimes or to hold a pharmaceutical company liable for birth defects that mighth ave been caused by anti-nausea medication prescribed by doctors for pregnant women.

The so-called DNA Wars of which I was a part in the late 80s and 90s resisting the admissibility of DNA test results that implicated my clients in death peenalty cases and the pressure on the courts to provide a legal remedy for parents of children born with birth defects possibly because the mothers ingested prescription Bendectin at the recommendation of their physicians to overcome morning sickness placed a mighty stress on our legal system.

The National Association of Prosecuting Attorneys pressured the courts to admit DNA testing and they were eventually successful in overcoming criminal defense lawyers like me who fought hammer and tong to prevent the evidence from bein admitted.

Plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers fought hard to persuade the courts to permit them to show a link between not only Bendectin and birth defects, but also between certain lung cancers and exposure to radioactiviy, coal dust, asbestos or smoking.

The SCOTUS decided the Daubert case in the midst of this war being fought in the courts to reject or at least loosen the strictures of the Frye Rule to allow litigants a shot at convincing juries to rule their way.

For those who cling to the Frye Rule believing the scientific tradition should be respected and followed before a litigant should be permitted to introduce into evidence the results of a scientific test based on a novel scientific principle or new methodology, I think they need to reexamine their view in a manner that recognizes that most trials consist of a lot of evidence from different sources that often independently confirm a result obtained using an experimental theory or methodology.

In addition, one party or the other has to satisfy a burden of proof and each side can call its own experts to challenge or support the results obtained with the new theory or methodology.

I have confidence in the ability of jurors to evaluate evidence obtained as the result of new scientific theories and methodologies in light of other evidence in the case and to fairly and impartially determine guilt or innocence according to which party has the burden of proof in any case, whether civil or criminal.

Of course this requires skilled lawyerswho understand science and can explain it to lay people. Unfortunately, we have a shortage of those lawyers, but the times are changing.

Daubert recognizes that, although a courtroom is not a laboratory, it is an excellent crucible for determining the truth and judges, lawyers and jurors are capable of making correct decisions and delivering justice in a way that no laboratory can accomplish.

The death shriek in the Zimmerman case is an excellent example of a situation where other evidence in the case confirms the hypothesis that Trayvon Martin uttered the death shriek.

Briefly, the evidence will show that Trayvon was an unarmed 5’11,” 158-pound 17-year-old male walking home in the rain minding his own business after purchasing Skittles and an iced tea at a 7/11. He spent most of his time during his walk home talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone informing her about a creepy man who followed him slowly at a distance in his vehicle in a menacing manner without identifying himself or attempting to engage him in a conversation. Trayvon attempted to elude the creepy man by running away from the street and ducking into a grassy area corresponding to the backyards of two rows of town houses,That area was not visible from the street and once there he told his girlfriend that he thought he had successfully eluded him.

The evidence will also show that the defendant was a 5’8,” 207 pound 28-year-old Neighborhood Watch Captain, professionally trained fighter and former bouncer, who was armed with a fully loaded 9 mm semiautomatic handgun that he carried in a holster concealed from view inside the right rear waistband of his pants.

The evidence will show that he got out of his vehicle after Trayvon ran away, ran after him in hot pursuit, and continued running after him despite being warned not to do so and agreeing not to do so by the NEN dispatcher. Then, instead of agreeing to meet the officer dispatched to the scene at a set location such a his parked vehicle, the RTL front gate, Clubhouse, or the rear entrance to RTL though which “these assholes always get away,” he instructed the dispatcher to tell the officer to ring him up on his cell phone when he arrived at the RTL so that he could tell him where he was.

Finally, the evidence will show that Trayvon’s girlfriend heard Trayvon say to someone, “Why are you following me for?” and then she heard an older male voice challenge Trayvon stating, “What are you doing here?”

Then she heard a sound like two bodies coming together and Trayvon yelling, “Get off me. Get off me.”

Then the phone went dead.

Less than one minute later, the defendant shot Trayvon in the heart, killing him.

I contend that nothwithstanding Dr. Nakasone’s legitimate concerns about the capability of audio technology today to positively identify the source of the death shriek from an isolated 3 second recording of a 911 call, a jury can reach the right conclusion by considering Dr. Nakasone’s opinion together with the opinions of other experts, and most importantly, the other evidence in the case, and the possibility that only Trayvon Martin or the man with the gun could have made those screams.

This, by the way will be the State’s argument, given the questions that Mr. Mantei asked Dr. Nakasone.

I hope this clarifies your understanding of the issues that relate to the admissibility of expert opinion evidence regarding the identity of the person who uttered the death shriek.

In my experience, judges have almost always allowed the expert witness to testify and express an opinion in a situation like this. They rule that objections by counsel go to the weight that the jury should give to any expert’s opinion rather than to the admissibility of the evidence itself.

I believe Judge Nelson will reach the same conclusion.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation.


Comparison of Frye and Daubert Rules

June 1, 2013

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Several people have asked me to explain the Daubert rule and compare it to the Frye rule. Today is a good opportunity to do that since we are experiencing a bit of calm before the storm.

Judge Nelson scheduled a Frye hearing for June 6 and 7 to determine whether to permit the State to present expert testimony identifying voices in the background of a 911 call. The purpose of a Frye hearing is to determine whether to admit evidence derived from a new or novel scientific theory or methodology. In Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), the Court held that such evidence should be excluded unless the new or novel scientific theory or methodology is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

I previously wrote about the Frye rule here. Basically, it is a counting heads test that does not require the trial judge to understand the new or novel scientific theory or methodology.

The disadvantage of the Frye rule is that it may result in the exclusion of results obtained with theories and methodologies that are capable of producing accurate and reliable results, but are too new to have passed the test of peer review and become generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

This hole in the Frye rule eventually led to the SCOTUS adopting a new rule in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Significant changes in long existing legal rules generally require compelling facts, particularly if the rule change is going to cost corporate America big money. Daubert was such a case.

Writing for the majority, Justice Blackmun described that set of facts at pp. 582-583:

Petitioners Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller are minor children born with serious birth defects. They and their parents sued respondent in California state court, alleging that the birth defects had been caused by the mothers’ ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription antinausea drug marketed by respondent. Respondent removed the suits to federal court on diversity grounds.

After extensive discovery, respondent moved for summary judgment, contending that Bendectin does not cause birth defects in humans and that petitioners would be unable to come forward with any admissible evidence that it does. In support of its motion, respondent submitted an affidavit of Steven H. Lamm, physician and epidemiologist, who is a well-credentialed expert on the risks from exposure to various chemical substances. Doctor Lamm stated that he had reviewed all the literature on Bendectin and human birth defects—more than 30 published studies involving over 130,000 patients. No study had found Bendectin to be a human teratogen (i. e., a substance capable of causing malformations in fetuses). On the basis of this review, Doctor Lamm concluded that maternal use of Bendectin during the first trimester of pregnancy has not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects.

Petitioners did not (and do not) contest this characterization of the published record regarding Bendectin. Instead, they responded to respondent’s motion with the testimony of eight experts of their own, each of whom also possessed impressive credentials. These experts had concluded that Bendectin can cause birth defects. Their conclusions were based upon “in vitro” (test tube) and “in vivo” (live) animal studies that found a link between Bendectin and malformations; pharmacological studies of the chemical structure of Bendectin that purported to show similarities between the structure of the drug and that of other substances known to cause birth defects; and the “reanalysis” of previously published epidemiological (human statistical) studies.

The Court held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence replaced the Frye Rule. Rule 702 states:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if

(1) the testimony is based on upon sufficient facts or data,

(2) the testimony is the product of reliable priniciples and methods, and

(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

[Note that the language beginning with “or otherwise, if” was added to the rule in 2000 after the SCOTUS decided Daubert]

Application of Rule 702 must involve a consideration of the following factors discussed at pp. 592-595:

Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then, the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. We are confident that federal judges possess the capacity to undertake this review. Many factors will bear on the inquiry, and we do not presume to set out a definitive checklist or test. But some general observations are appropriate.

[Note that the previous paragraph changes the trial court’s job from counting heads to functioning as a gatekeeper]

Ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can be (and has been) tested. “Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry.” Green 645. See also C. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science 49 (1966) (“[T]he statements constituting a scientific explanation must be capable of empirical test”); K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge 37 (5th ed. 1989) (“[T]he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability”) (emphasis deleted).

Another pertinent consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. Publication (which is but one element of peer review) is not a sine qua non of admissibility; it does not necessarily correlate with reliability, see S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers 61-76 (1990), and in some instances well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published, see Horrobin, The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation, 263 JAMA 1438 (1990). Some propositions, moreover, are too particular, too new, or of too limited interest to be published. But submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of “good science,” in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected. See J. Ziman, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science 130-133 (1978); Relman & Angell, How Good Is Peer Review?, 321 New Eng. J. Med. 827 (1989). The fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer reviewed journal thus will be a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing the scientific validity of a particular technique or methodology on which an opinion is premised.

Additionally, in the case of a particular scientific technique, the court ordinarily should consider the known or potential rate of error, see, e. g., United States v. Smith, 869 F. 2d 348, 353-354 (CA7 1989) (surveying studies of the error rate of spectrographic voice identification technique), and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation, see United States v. Williams, 583 F. 2d 1194, 1198 (CA2 1978) (noting professional organization’s standard governing spectrographic analysis), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 1117 (1979).

Finally, “general acceptance” can yet have a bearing on the inquiry. A “reliability assessment does not require, although it does permit, explicit identification of a relevant scientific community and an express determination of a particular degree of acceptance within that community.” United States v. Downing, 753 F. 2d, at 1238. See also 3 Weinstein & Berger ¶ 702[03], pp. 702-41 to 702-42. Widespread acceptance can be an important factor in ruling particular evidence admissible, and “a known technique which has been able to attract only minimal support within the community,” Downing, 753 F. 2d, at 1238, may properly be viewed with skepticism.

The inquiry envisioned by Rule 702 is, we emphasize, a flexible one. Its overarching subject is the scientific validity—and thus the evidentiary relevance and reliability—of the principles that underlie a proposed submission. The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.

And there you have it.


Zimmerman: Judge rules that evidence published by defense last week is not relevant or admissible

May 28, 2013

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Good afternoon:

Judge Nelson denied the defense motion for a continuance of the trial.

None of the information about Trayvon, which caused the big hullabaloo last week after the defense improperly released it for publication to the Orlando Sentinel, will be admitted into evidence at the trial because all of it is irrelevant and inadmissible.

However, Judge Nelson granted O’Mara’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion for sanctions against BDLR for alleged discovery violations pertaining to that information. Unfortunately, she had to continue the hearing to June 6th because O’Mara did not have all of the witnesses he needed to present his case.

I do not believe that he has a legitimate argument, since the evidence is not admissible at trial or exculpatory, and the prosecution disclosed it to the defense in timely fashion back in January. O’Mara claims that the disclosure was not timely because he was provided with raw data that he could not interpret.

However, he specifically asked for raw data, which is a proper request, and he should have retained an expert and/or the software program that is used to interpret it. His failure to do that cannot be blamed on BDLR.

FYI: Defense counsel should routinely ask for raw data, since it is the actual result and less susceptible to misinterpretation. Note that O’Mara waited until after the panel of 500 potential jurors were summoned to jury service. His delay in filing his motion for sanctions suggests that he was more interested in gaining a tactical advantage with that motion than he was in obtaining an interpretation of the raw data.

Judge Nelson granted the defense request for a Frye hearing regarding the admissibility of expert testimony identifying the person who uttered the terrified death shriek. She scheduled the hearing for June 6th and 7th and will permit expert witnesses on both sides to testify by videophone.

The defense still has not endorsed any expert witnesses. Remains to be seen, if any legitimate experts will disagree with the State’s experts and if they have the money to pay an expert. I doubt that they do.

At a press conference after the hearing, Robert Zimmerman, Jr. aggressively promoted the conspiracy theory that I wrote about in my last post.

_________________________________________________

I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred


Zimmerman defense stumbled into money trap

May 19, 2013

Sunday, May 19, 2013

ChrisNY~Laurie said,

Why haven’t we seen any reciprocal discovery? I’d like to see what the defense has turned over to the State. Do we not get to see reciprocal discovery?

The Defense has expert witness’ that they would like to call via video conferencing at the next hearing, and filed a motion for approval. Does the Judge approve or deny this motion before the next hearing date or wait and tell them during the hearing when she gets to that motion? I haven’t even seen a motion in reply from the State yet, so maybe they have no objections to this. I don’t see how they don’t considering the defense did not name these experts, unless they did through emails or something.

Let’s not place the cart before the horse. Judge Nelson first has to decide whether to grant the defense motion for a Frye hearing. She will decide that motion at the hearing on May 28th.

I do not believe she will grant the motion because O’Mara has not made a proper showing. He needs affidavits from experts asserting that the technology/methodology used by the prosecution’s experts is not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community (i.e., audiologists). He hasn’t done that.

If she were to grant the motion, however, I do not believe she would conduct it via video conferencing. Cross examining someone on a video screen is not the same as cross examining them in person when the witness is not on his own turf with support at the ready off camera. I do not believe Bernie de la Rionda would agree to O’Mara’s request. I certainly would object if I were the prosecutor. I do not believe Judge Nelson would grant O’Mara’s request over de la Rionda’s objection.

O’Mara appears to be caught up in a money trap caused by frivolous expenditures of internet contributions and now he cannot afford experts.

Too bad, so sad.

The answer, as I have been suggesting for several months, is to attempt to get the defendant declared indigent so that the court will pay for the experts, but O’Mara and his client do not want to go there.

I suspect the reason is they do not want the internet fund shut down and turned over to the Court for reimbursement.

Greed and stupidity are quite the double whammy.

They have only themselves to blame.

_________________________________________________

I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred


%d bloggers like this: