O’Mara and West will never collect the $2.5 Million fee.

December 1, 2013

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Good afternoon:

I write today to criticize Mark O’Mara and Don West for charging a $2.5 Million fee for representing George Zimmerman. I believe O’Mara’s announcement after the trial ended regarding the fee probably violates the fee agreement that he reached with Zimmerman before officially entering the case. Pursuant to that agreement, he agreed to represent Zimmerman pro bono. In other words, he agreed not to charge a fee.

A fee agreement is an enforceable contract under the laws of the State of Florida and I believe Zimmerman would have a good chance to prevail, if he challenges the fee on the ground that it violates the fee agreement.

Costs are a separate matter. Clients are always responsible for paying the costs win, lose or draw.

Costs typically include court reporter fees for deposition transcripts, expert witness fees and investigation fees to name a few.

I recall O’Mara announced several weeks after trial that, as the prevailing party in a self-defense case, he had submitted a cost bill for $200,000 to the State of Florida. I do not know if the State has paid some or all of the creditors, but I think it will pay most, if not all of the costs.

Lawyers generally do not charge their clients by the hour in criminal cases, unless they are representing a rich client or a corporation. Instead, they charge a non-refundable retainer up front that will compensate the lawyer for the time spent working on the case, assuming it does not go to trial. If the case is unlikely to be resolved without a trial, the lawyer will request an additional non-refundable fee to cover the time spent trying the case.

I am going to guess that O’Mara and West did not think about an hourly fee until they started filing motions for sanctions and terms against the prosecution for various alleged discovery violations. Since they were seeking compensation for the additional time they had to work on the case due to the alleged misconduct, they had to come up with the total number of hours for the extra work and multiply it by an hourly amount.

Voila! O’Mara claimed a rate of $400/hour and West claimed $350/hour.

Most criminal defense lawyers base their non-refundable retainers on an estimate of the time they will devote to the case at an hourly rate of compensation.

Of course, I do not believe Zimmerman will ever pay any portion of the $2.5 Million. I do not believe the civil suit against NBC will be successful.


How can we prevent cyber bullying

October 19, 2013

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Good afternoon:

On September 9th, 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick jumped to her death from a tower at an abandoned cement plant in Polk County, Florida. She committed suicide because she could no longer endure a vicious campaign of cyber bullying by two girls and their friends. The two girls allegedly started bullying Rebecca because they were jealous of her relationship with a 13-year-old boy. The bullying continued for almost a year and persisted even after the relationship with the boy ended.

The case has been in the news recently because police arrested the two girls on Monday and charged them with aggravated stalking. The 12-year-old girl has publicly admitted she was wrong and apologized to Rebecca’s mother, but the 14-year-old girl posted a comment on Facebook acknowledging,

Yes ik I bullied REBECCA nd she killed her self but IDGAF!!!!

The Polk County Sheriff has publicly chastised the 14-year-old’s stepmother because she denied knowledge of the bullying and defended the girl saying her facebook account had been hacked.

He said “she doesn’t get it,” and “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”

He said he is considering charging her with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The stepmother was arrested yesterday and charged with two counts of child abuse for slugging two children. She claims that she was only attempting to break-up a fight between the two victims. The incident was captured on video.

Rebecca’s suicide has focused national attention on cyber bullying and internet stalking. Crane and I know something about that because certain members of the right-wing hate-machine have been stalking us for over a year. Some of our readers who have websites also have been targeted by obsessed and twisted haters.

People have different ways of dealing with the haters. I ignore them. Young people like Rebecca are more vulnerable and wound more easily. Teenagers lack maturity and can be especially cruel. In a culture where many people believe that it’s cool to be cruel, there can be little doubt that we will see more preventable tragedies like Rebecca’s.

The question is what, if anything, do we do about it?

Ironically, Mark O’Mara is in the news again for his effort to draft legislation that would hold parents accountable for cyber bullying by their children. The statute would create a duty to know what your kids are doing on line and criminalize a failure to prevent your kids from cyber bullying.

There are four major problems with this effort.

First, criminal laws traditionally prohibit certain acts accompanied by a particular mental state. One of the most basic principles of criminal law is that you have to know what you are doing when you commit a prohibited act. You do not have to know the act is prohibited, but you do have to know what you are doing when you commit the act.

Second, criminal laws traditionally do not create duties to supervise others and criminalize the failure to discover objectionable conduct and prevent it.

Third, many teenagers are more knowledgeable than their parents about using the internet and there are ways they can access the internet without their parent’s knowledge.

Fourth, are the police going to be monitoring internet activity to prevent cyber bullying and, if so, is that a good idea?

As a society, we have a tendency to respond to tragedies by enacting new criminal laws. However, criminal laws cannot solve all of our problems.

The importance of education and workshops in changing human behavior should not be underestimated.

What do you think?


Better gitty-up and git yer tickets now

October 18, 2013

Friday, October 18, 2013

Good morning:

I know all of you are just dying to attend the Gun Rights Preservation Forum next month in Viera, Florida. The Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida is sponsoring the event and you know that anything they sponsor will be absolutely magical.

Mark O’Mara will be the enthralling speaker for the evening event. Don’t be late, because he will be presented with the Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida’s annual Jefferson Cup Award, which is awarded for speaking truth to power.

Bob White, chairman of the caucus, said O’Mara earned it by standing up against the prosecution of the case against Zimmerman and standing up to the media coverage of the case.

No event like this would be complete without a raffle and this event is no exception. The Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida will be raffling a Kel-Tec 9 mm semiautomatic pistol and a bible.

Florida Today has the story.

Tickets for the gun and Bible raffle are $15 apiece or five for $50. White said the combined value of the gun and the Bible are about $500.

“I would say it’s a proven, reliable, self-defense firearm,” said Marc Boileau, the owner of Affordable Pawn and Gun in Melbourne, which is working with the Republican Liberty Caucus in providing the Kel-Tec PF-9 as the raffle prize. Boileau also noted that Kel-Tec CNC Industries Inc., is based in Cocoa.

White said the connection between the raffle prize and Zimmerman is coincidental, and that the Republican Liberty Caucus chose a Kel-Tec gun as a way to support a local company.

“We basically thought this would be a great way to highlight the Second Amendment and raise money for our organization,” White said.

Get your tickets now because I’m sure you won’t want to miss this exciting event and pass up a chance to win a bible and a really cool gun just like the one Zimmerman used to murder an unarmed and helpless Trayvon Martin.


What do you all think of Chief Bracknell’s emails about George Zimmerman

September 13, 2013

Friday, September 13, 2013

Good evening:

Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell has described George Zimmerman as a time bomb waiting to explode in Sandy-Hook fashion, which has been my impression for a long time.

Frankly, I will be surprised if he does not kill Shellie Zimmerman or her lawyer Kelly Sims. Even Mark O’Mara might be at risk.

Here is a link to the emails.

Here’s Trained Observer’s comment from a little earlier today incorporating an earlier comment by Bandit:

Finally a voice of reason from law enforcement. Here’s an MSNBC report via FreakoutNation:

Florida Sheriff: If I had the authority, I would consider revoking Zimmerman’s Firearm License

September 13, 2013
By Bandit

Stating he has serious concerns about George Zimmerman’s actions, Police Chief Steve Bracknell said today that if the had the authority, he would consider revoking George Zimmerman’s firearm license, MSNBC reports. Bracknell is police chief in the city where Zimmerman resides.

Steve Bracknell, the chief of police in Lake Mary, said during a telephone interview with NBC News, “I’m a small-town police chief. If I had the authority to revoke his firearm license, I would certainly sit down and consider that.”

“Does anyone else except me see a pattern?” Bracknell added. “The word firearm keeps popping up.”

Although no gun was found on Zimmerman during the most recent incident this past Monday, Bracknell stated that Mr. Zimmerman did have a gun in his car.

In an email exchange reported by Think Progress, Chief Bracknell did tell a concerned citizen that Zimmerman had a gun in his car.

Bracknell wrote, “We did not have the authority to search his truck. He DID have a firearm in the truck. Having a firearm is not a violation of Florida law.”

Zimmerman’s former attorney previously stated on Monday that Mr. Zimmerman did have a gun.

The chief also wrote in response to the citizen’s suggestion that police in Florida were covering for Zimmerman, “REST ASSURED, the last thing on planet earth I want is ANY relationship with the Zimmermans. PERIOD.”

Bracknell also told NBC News he has “concerns” about Zimmerman. “I think a lot of people do,” Bracknell said.

Lake Mary resident Santiago Rodriguez, upset that police failed to file charges, fired off a strongly worded email – criticizing the department and Zimmerman.

Rodriguez calls Zimmerman a “ticking time bomb” and says he’s another “Sandy Hook” waiting to happen… apparently comparing him to someone capable of a mass shooting. In response to the email dated Sept 10th, 2013, Chief Steve Bracknell said “Your reference to Sandy Hook… I agree.”When contacted by the site for comment on his initial agreeance, Chief Bracknell distanced himself saying he was “referring to the fact that [Zimmerman] seems to be involved in incidents” involving firearms.

Charles P. Pierce at Esquire writes, “OK, that’s the least convincing “walk back” I’ve ever read. The guy wrote, “Sandy Hook.” The chief said, specifically, “Sandy Hook…I agree,” but now he says that he was agreeing with something else? Nope. Dog won’t hunt. Which is not to say that Crimebuster George isn’t “involved in incidents involving firearms.” He’s certainly been that.”

Earlier this week, there were doubts regarding whether Chief Bracknell actually said these things. Well, not any longer because he has basically confirmed them.

Your thoughts?


Mark O’Mara will be billing the State of Florida $200, 000 to $300,000 for costs in Zimmerman case

August 27, 2013

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Good morning:

The Orlando Sentinel reported late yesterday:

George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who killed Trayvon Martin, plans to ask the state of Florida to cover $200,000 to $300,000 of his legal expenses, his attorney told the Orlando Sentinel Monday evening.

Because Zimmerman was acquitted, state law requires Florida to pay all his legal costs, minus the biggest one: the fee that goes to his lawyers.

That includes the cost of expert witnesses, travel, depositions, photocopies, even that animated 3-D video that defense attorneys showed jurors during closing argument that depicts Trayvon punching Zimmerman.

Florida Statute 939.06 provides:

Acquitted defendant not liable for costs.–No defendant in a criminal prosecution who is acquitted or discharged shall be liable for any costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office, or for any charge of subsistence while detained in custody. If the defendant shall have paid any taxable costs in the case, the clerk or judge shall give him or her a certificate of the payment of such costs, with the items thereof, which, when audited and approved according to law, shall be refunded to the defendant.

(emphasis supplied)

The Orlando Sentinel is correct. The statute does not authorize reimbursement for attorneys fees.

I do not doubt that the costs are substantial, but the statute limits them to “costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office.”

O’Mara will have to submit a cost bill itemizing the costs and fees that he has paid or owes to others and the Judicial Administrative Commission will decide how much it will pay.

In most states the cost bill is submitted to the trial judge for approval and then presented to a state judicial commission that decides how much it will pay.

I imagine that the JAC has well established rules and guidelines regarding what it will pay and how much it will pay.


A tale of two psychopaths: Castro and Zimmerman

August 1, 2013

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Good evening to all of our friends:

Ariel Castro was sentenced today in Cleveland to life without possibility of parole, plus 1,000 years, a $100,000 fine, and court costs.

He will never be released from prison.

Crane and I liveblogged the 4.5 hour sentencing hearing via livestream. If you missed it, please go here.

Michelle Knight spoke at the sentencing and you can watch her here.

Amanda Berry, her young daughter and Gena de Jesus, the other three victims did not attend the hearing. Family members spoke for them.

Castro’s full statement to the court is here.

He denied being a monster or a violent man and insisted that they were a family and harmony prevailed.

About as fine an example of a psychopath denying responsibility for and minimizing his criminal conduct as you are likely to find.

Which brings me to another man without a conscience, George Zimmerman.

Unlike Ariel Castro, who will never be released from prison, Zimmerman is out and about packing a gun and was last seen in Texas where he was stopped for speeding and warned not to load his gun and to put it away in his glove compartment.

He didn’t get a ticket.

Ohio law enforcement did its job in Cleveland. The Sanford Police Department in Sanford did not.

These two cases offer a great illustration of the difference between honest cops who knew what they were doing and corrupt cops who knowingly and intentionally freed a remorseless killer just because he killed a black kid.

Finally, I was pleased to see two defense attorneys who did the right thing. As Crane just said, Mark O’Mara probably would have put the victims on trial claiming they were responsible because they were whores and they wanted to be enslaved.

What’s on your mind tonight?

________________________________________________________________

Your financial support allows us to continue posting independent articles like this.

There have not been many donations lately.

Without your continuing financial support, we would have to shut down this website.

Please donate to keep independent journalism alive.

We thank you for your support.

Fred and Crane-Station


What to expect tomorrow at the hearings in the Zimmerman case

June 5, 2013

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Good morning:

Except for RZ, Jr.’s unsupported claim that Dr. Alan Reich’s opinions are based on voodoo science, nothing new has been reported in the press today about the case.

Speaking of new, the purpose of a Frye hearing is to determine whether a new or novel scientific theory or methodology is generally accepted in the scientific community. If the answer to the question is “No,” evidence obtained using that theory or methodology will be excluded and the jury will never hear about it.

If the theory or methodology used is not novel or new, the evidence will be admitted and objections to the accuracy of the results will go to weight and not admissibility. In other words, the jury will determine how much weight to assign to the evidence.

I think the defendant’s objections go to weight rather than admissibility, since the technology used is not novel or new.

Therefore, I am predicting that Judge Nelson will deny the defense motion to exclude testimony by the defense audiologists, including Dr. Reich.

The other motion scheduled for tomorrow is the defense motion for sanctions and a judicial review of alleged prosecution discovery violations. This will involve a continuation of the hearing that began last Tuesday with Wesley West on the stand. West, the former Nassau County prosecutor who resigned due to differences of opinion with State Attorney Angela Corey last December, represents whistleblower Ben Kruidbos, the Fourth Circuit Director of Information Technology who is going to testify that Bernie de la Rionda had photographs and video from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone that he did not disclose to the defense.

As I have said before, “Who cares?”

BDLR turned over the BIN file to the defense back in January, but the defense did not hire anyone to extract it or purchase the software to do it themselves.

In addition, the information on the phone is not relevant, admissible or exculpatory and, in light of Mark O’Mara’s lie about a video supposedly depicting Travon laughing as his buddies beat up a homeless person, O’Mara should have the decency to withdraw the motion and apologize for filing it.

He will not do that, of course.

I would deny his frivolous motion and fine him, if not jail him for contempt, but Judge Nelson is nicer than I am, so she will just deny it or hold off on issuing a ruling until after the trial, which is what she did with the last defense motion for sanctions.

The testimony from the audiologists should be interesting and worth listening to. After they are finished testifying, I think O’Mara will deeply regret having asked for a Frye hearing.

This is a golden opportunity for BDLR to inform the jury panel, the nation and the world on the eve of trial that Trayvon uttered the death shriek.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 am EDT.

We will live blog on the road via livestream from a motorcycle somewhere deep in Tennessee.

Ciao, baby.

______________________________________________________________

Please keep those donations coming.

We’ll need the gas money to get home.

Many blessings to all of you from

Fred and Crane


Defense has known about bicycle fight video for 9 months

June 3, 2013

Monday, June 3, 2013

Check this out.

It’s a copy of a discovery-demand letter from Don West to Bernie de la Rionda that establishes that the defense knew about bicycle video clip on Trayvon Martin’s phone for at least nine months. The letter is dated September 19, 2012.

West says:

You mentioned that you had seen a video connected to him [Trayvon Martin] in some way regarding a bicycle. We were previously unaware of anything like that, but later saw a clip taken from his cell phone SIM card that may have been what you were referencing.

Since the defense has known about this video clip for at least 9 months, I cannot imagine how Mark O’Mara could innocently have mistaken it for a video of two of Trayvon’s friends beating up a homeless person.

Mark O’Mara has some ‘splainin’ to do and the third person apology on his website ain’t gonna git ‘r done.

While he is explaining his way out of that mess, he should also explain why the defense is now seeking sanctions on the ground that this video was not disclosed to them.

(H/T to Big Boi for letting me know that a poster at Crime Watcher’s found the letter. He is also on Twitter as @TruthThere.
Also, thanks to LLMPapa for the link to West’s letter)

______________________________________________

Please keep the donations coming.

There will be no free time between now and when the jury renders its verdict.

Nobody else is going to write articles like this one.

I’m your ticket to Inside the Game.

Fred


Mark O’Mara should be sanctioned by the Court

May 30, 2013

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Good morning:

Bad character evidence about the victim of a homicide is not admissible in a self-defense case unless the defendant knew it before the encounter that ended with the victim’s death.

In other words, if the defendant did not know that the victim was a violent thug, he cannot introduce evidence that the victim was a violent thug in support of his claim of self-defense.

Mark O’Mara is using the information obtained from Trayvon’s phone in a fruitless attempt to establish that Trayvon was a violent thug. Even if he were successful, the information would still be irrelevant and inadmissible because the defendant did not know Trayvon before he killed him.

O’Mara must know this because he is a lawyer who specializes in criminal law. Since he knows this, we can reasonably conclude that he knows his motion for sanctions against BDLR will be denied.

The question people should be asking is why did he file the motion since he knew it would be denied?

I believe the answer is obvious.

He is using the motion as a vehicle to publicize irrelevant and inadmissible information about Trayvon Martin. He wants the public to believe that Trayvon is a violent thug who deserved to die.

Since he waited to file his motion until after 500 people received a summons for jury duty, we also can tell that he is using his motion for sanctions to convince as many of those 500 people as possible that Trayvon was a violent thug who deserved to die.

Two additional important points that are getting lost amid the hue and cry caused by the release of the information are that:

(1) it does not prove Trayvon was a violent thug, and

(2) it does prove that Mark O’Mara acted in bad faith when he filed the motion for sanctions.

Therefore, Judge Nelson should sanction O’Mara for filing the motion for sanctions in bad faith.

_________________________________________________

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: Pssst hey buddy what’s a Frye hearing

May 7, 2013

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

To Frye or not to Frye,
that is the question.
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind
to suffer the slings and arrows
of outrageous fortune
or to take arms against
a sea of troubles
and by opposing end them.

Hamlet, Act III, by William Shakespeare

Good morning:

I write today to explain the Frye Rule and Mark O’Mara’s latest strategic mistake. Let’s begin with the mistake.

If Judge Nelson grants his motion, there will not be any testimony by an expert witness regarding the identity of the person who uttered the terrified shriek. That will not help the defense because that intense, high-pitched, and prolonged nightmarish shriek of sheer terror ends abruptly with the fatal gunshot to the heart.

Just as it does not take a weatherman to tell which direction the wind blows, no juror is going to have any difficulty figuring out that the person who uttered that inhuman shriek is the victim of that gunshot. No juror is going to believe that the person armed with the gun; who pulled it out of a holster; who extended his arm; who aimed the gun taking care to make sure his left hand was out of the way; and who pulled the trigger at point-blank range is the person who screamed.

I am certain the prosecutor will not forget to remind the jury that the defendant told the police that he kept screaming for help after the shot because he thought he missed Trayvon Martin.

Apparently, Mark O’Mara has not listened to that agonizing shriek because, if he had listened to it, he never would have filed this ridiculous motion that can only hurt his client, if Judge Nelson grants it, since the absence of expert testimony would simplify identifying Trayvon as the source of the shriek while also disproving the defendant’s claim that Trayvon was beating him to death and attempting to smother him when he fired the fatal shot.

Breath. Taking. Stupidity.

Now, let’s take a look at the Frye-hearing request.

Every once in awhile someone develops a new theory or a new way of performing some task (i.e., a new methodology). A lawyer finds out about it and decides he wants to apply that new theory or methodology to win a case. Opposing counsel says, “Not so fast, pal. Not without a Frye hearing.”

A Frye hearing is a pretrial hearing to determine if evidence obtained pursuant to a new theory or methodology should be admitted or excluded during the trial. Think of it as a judicial screening device to exclude potentially inaccurate and unreliable evidence based on a new untested theory or methodology.

We call it a Frye hearing because the first published case that dealt with this issue was Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923). Judge Van Orsdell laid out the facts:

A single assignment of error is presented for our consideration. In the course of the trial counsel for defendant offered an expert witness to testify to the result of a deception test made upon defendant. The test is described as the systolic blood pressure deception test. It is asserted that blood pressure is influenced by change in the emotions of the witness, and that the systolic blood pressure rises are brought about by nervous impulses sent to the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system. Scientific experiments, it is claimed, have demonstrated that fear, rage, and pain always produce a rise of systolic blood pressure, and that conscious deception or falsehood, concealment of facts, or guilt of crime, accompanied by fear of detection when the person is under examination, raises the systolic blood pressure in a curve, which corresponds exactly to the struggle going on in the subject’s mind, between fear and attempted control of that fear, as the examination touches the vital points in respect of which he is attempting to deceive the examiner.

In other words, the theory seems to be that truth is spontaneous, and comes without conscious effort, while the utterance of a falsehood requires a conscious effort, which is reflected in the blood pressure. The rise thus produced is easily detected and distinguished from the rise produced by mere fear of the examination itself. In the former instance, the pressure rises higher than in the latter, and is more pronounced as the examination proceeds, while in the latter case, if the subject is telling the truth, the pressure registers highest at the beginning of the examination, and gradually diminishes as the examination proceeds.

Prior to the trial defendant was subjected to this deception test, and counsel offered the scientist who conducted the test as an expert to testify to the results obtained. The offer was objected to by counsel for the government, and the court sustained the objection. Counsel for defendant then offered to have the proffered witness conduct a test in the presence of the jury. This also was denied.

Judge Van Orsdell then proceeded to define the new rule:

The rule is that the opinions of experts or skilled witnesses are admissible in evidence in those cases in which the matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, for the reason that the subject-matter so far partakes of a science, art, or trade as to require a previous habit or experience or study in it, in order to acquire a knowledge of it. When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence.

Numerous cases are cited in support of this rule. Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.

(Emphasis supplied)

The issue Judge Nelson would have to decide, assuming she decides to hold a Frye hearing, is whether the methodologies used by the state’s experts are generally accepted by audiologists as capable of producing accurate and reliable results.

The Frye test has been described as a counting-heads test because it does not require the judge to understand the theory or methodology at issue. The judge need only count the heads of the experts in the particular field and decide whether they generally accept the methodology.

As I recall, two experts used different methodologies to compare the shriek to a voice exemplar provided by the defendant. One methodology has been used for many years and the other one, which was developed recently, involves the use of a software program.

Both experts have excluded the defendant as the source of the scream.

Since the first method has been used for many years, it probably has survived a Frye challenge in Florida.

The second method may be too new to have been challenged at a Frye hearing.

The glaring, and I believe fatal, omission in O’Mara’s motion for a Frye hearing is the absence of any supporting affidavits from experts in audiology that one or both of the methodologies used are not generally accepted by audiologists as capable of producing accurate and reliable results.

Nobody gives a damn about what the non-expert lawyer thinks. He is not qualified to express an opinion about general acceptance of these methodologies.

Therefore, I would deny his motion for a Frye hearing.

Notice that regardless whether Judge Nelson grants or denies O’Mara’s motion, the State will still be required to lay a proper foundation for each of its expert audiologists at trial pursuant to Evidence Rule 702 that the witness is a duly qualified expert in the field and the result obtained using the particular methodology in question will assist the jury to decide who is screaming.

In conclusion, if I were the prosecutor, I would be inclined to try the case without putting on any audiologists during my case-in-chief for the simple reason that I do not believe they are necessary. This is another illustration of the KISS rule.

BTW, all that sparring about whether Tracy Martin could identify Trayvon as the source of the shriek does not matter.

Hardly anyone ever shrieks like that and lives to tell about it, so it stands to reason that no one, including his father, ever heard Trayvon utter a shriek like that. This may explain why it may not be possible for any expert to positively identify the source of the shriek without considering the circumstances or context that produced it.

That’s why it sounds inhuman.

_________________________________________________

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: