I suspect the police have pictures also and if not then it begs the question why not? They photograph the crap out of auto accidents in order to reconstruct what happened. It would seem like SOP.
I disagree with that expert, interestingly enough. I believe the method Owen discusses DOES meet the standard for admissibility in the federal court system.
I don’t think it meets the Frye standard, which is required in Florida.
Again, the difference between those two standards: in federal court, Daubert says that if there’s an expert that can be shown to be qualified (Owen certainly is) and he can explain a set of facts that will help the jury reach a relevant conclusion (he says he can) then his testimony can be admitted.
Florida’s use of the Frye standard means that one additional hurdle must be overcome: the method, technology, or technique must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in its particular scientific or technical field. So far as I can tell, Easy Voice Biometrics does not meet that standard.
So Dr. Wayman is incorrect on the law, in my view.
The interesting thing about the picture was it appears to have been taken before the EMTs worked on him. The blood is still streaming down his head. I read somewhere that the Sanford police took a bunch of pictures of Zimmerman at the police station. I’m sure the police took a bunch of pictures of the crime scene after Zimmerman left.
BTW, The bail hearing is streaming live at
I disagree with Bricker that it meets the Frye standard IF it’s based on the singular expertise of recently introduced software without any review. I could claim I have invented a truth meter using a divining rod and wave 400 personally documented trials show it works. Just for argument’s sake I have a PHD in psychology. As a defense lawyer I’d demand a blind test of the system using at least 100 people to demonstrate it can distinguish between screams and regular voice patterns. In other words, expert testimony using the Vocilator 2000 needs some kind of verification the thing works because it doesn’t even have the history of lie detectors which to my knowledge are not admissible in court.
We can only hope that the cops took photos.
huh, testimony by phone. I did not know that was done.
The statements from the SA’s office that I’ve been talking appear to be an attempt to deflect blame from the prosecution regarding Zimmerman’s non-arrest before the case was transferred to the state. I haven’t seen any statements from the SA’s office about insufficient probable cause after the PD completed their investigation.
I’m not talking about the SPD, though. I’m talking about the state attorney. I’m questioning why they chose to deviate from the “insufficent evidence” message offered by the PD, when that would have been the most logical path to take if it were true.
I’m not really sure which system you’re applauding and which you’re condemning.
In both Frye and Daubert, the judge must make a threshold determination about admissibility. A case called General Electric v. Joiner is, in fact, part of what’s sometimes called the “Daubert Trilogy” because it affirms the “gatekeeper” function of the trial court – not to admit expert testiony at all unless it passes the basic rules set out in Daubert.
This is not to say that any crazy “expert” will be heard, then. The Daubert case lays out the standards for the trial judge to consider, and they include questions like whether the scientific theory has been tested, if it’s been evaluated by publication in peer reviewed journals, and what the measured or theoretical error rate is.
Um…
Sorry, the first mentioned, Federal Standard in regards to Owen. But I don’t know his full background other than he’s in the forensic business. I suspect, and you can expound on it, that his credentials as related to the software would be called into question.
At least we can put the Zimmerman wasn’t injured argument behind.
Well, I admit I’m not looking at a voir dire transcript of the man or anything, but one of the strongest facts that can be brought out in a voir dire qualification of a witness is the number of times other courts have found the witness qualified as an expert:
Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society’s Standards Group SC-03-WG-12 on Forensic Audio sounds impressive enough. Just thinking aside, New York City’s Lincoln Center Archives? sounds like he testifies in music recording cases. Can you sift out the kind of cases he testifies in for curiosity sake. I’d bet a whole quarter he as a few copyright infringement cases to his name. Maybe 50 cents.
PD reports say he was face down.
idk about the rest. idk if his jacket had a zipper and could be open showing the front while he was laying face down or not.
Maybe – but remember that copyright infringement is solely a federal issue, and Owen’s list of courts that have certified him as an expert is much longer:
Southern and Eastern Districts in New York are federal. But he’s got a laundry list of others, so I suspect he’s done more than music copyright.
I’m just curious if you can sift through cases with his name attached to see what kind of stuff he testifies to. I’m not trying to pigeon hole him to music but it sounded like that was on the list.
I wish I could listen to the whole thing but I’m not going to be able to. Quite fascinating.
Serino makes no claims in this article.
I am disappointed.
: (
I was already aware of reports about the filing of an affidavit. I thought you had seen something where Serino made a claim. I have seen the claims that Serino claimed, but not Serino’s claim.
From what Corey has said, the case was transferred before Sanford was totally done with it. Idk exactly what was left for Sanford to do. Nor do I know when it was transferred. But Corey’s comments indicated that her team took over toward the end, but before it was wrapped up. (w/e that may mean)
It may be because the PD statements are in re why Zimmerman wasn’t arrested in February and the SA statements are about the results of things that were ongoing as March rolled around.
It’s possible that the investigation turned up evidence which was not available “at the time” that Wolfinger’s office declined to press charges on February 26th/27th.
That would explain the difference. And it doesn’t sound outlandish that they may have found out new things as the investigation progressed.
:shrug:
I was about to ask if they usually try the case in a bond hearing when the prosecutor asked the same question. So question answered. They’re basically doing a mini version of the trial.
I’m surprised his attorney allowed the prosecutor to repeatedly make the claim that Zimmerman committed a crime. Isn’t that the purpose of the trial?
Isn’t that the standard default position of the prosecution?
Isn’t that par for the course?