Zimmerman Trial: Lawyers Eat Crow

[Guest Raidne]

The Vietnam veteran is testifying as a friend of Zimmerman's, so presumably he's a character witness? If so, he's not been qualified as competent to give that kind of "expert" testimony and it should be struck from the record, especially since the Judge already ruled that expert voice analysis evidence will not be admissible after hearing from two conflicting experts + one expert who said there simply wasn't enough voice recorded to be able to make a determination.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree that I don't think his opinion is necessarily any more credible than other friends and family testifying for Martin and Zimmerman. Still, the way it was done makes it sound like his opinion should be given more weight. The State objected and I wouldn't be surprised if the estimony doesn't end up stricken from the record.

Yeah, I think it probably should be striken because it really is more akin to expert opinion. But the point is that if you accept his testimony as accurate, then none of the voice testimony is worht a crap.

Generally, I think the voice identification for both sides is a wash. Martin's mom testifying that her son yelled for help is the best evidence the State has for a murder charge. Now that Zimmerman has paraded witness after witness to combat the mother's testimony, I think reasonable doubt has or should have been created on this issue, unless the jury can glean some information that we can't (e.g. Demeanor evidence) that might call into question the credibility of a witness.

I agree. People who know Martin's voice say it is him, people who Zimmerman's voice say it is him. Not a huge surprise there. The part that makes me scratch my head is the seemingly obvious point that unless you're familiar with both of their voices, any comparison is going to be dodgy at best.

[Reny of Storms End]

Raidne and FLOW both said what I wanted to say, but with more eloquence.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Seems like all of us self-appointed judges here agree that the vet's testimony should be tossed.... But hey, is this another example of the prosecution failing to make a timely objection?

ETA: Er, wait a minute. It seems that it was the FBI voice expert who previously testified that death screams are different from other screams, not this vet. It was just this vet who said the voice was Zimmerman's, so it's not him that was offering the expert testimony. Was all of that FBI expert's testimony stricken, including this nugget about death screams being different?

[Guest Raidne]

Yeah, it even seems pretty open and shut to me and I am laughably bad at all rules of evidence dealing with anything other than the evaluation of expert testimony - and that's not an issue here since, I believe, expert witnesses have to be qualified by voir dire (i.e., questioned to establish their expertise) before they can testify as experts?

[Tempra]

Wasn't testimony from a voice expert thrown out, or not admitted, because the judge said the methods used were not credible? Yet now a man who fought in a war that happened 40 years ago is allowed to testify saying he knows it was Zimmerman because he has heard other people yell, 40 years ago. For that matter why are witnesses allowed to testify who they think yelled when the voice expert wasn't?

Yes, two experts for the State were not allowed to testify because their opinions were based on techniques not generally accepted in the scientific community. One looped the few seconds of usable audio several times to get to the minimum thirty seconds needed for accurate voice identification. The FBI audio expert for the defense, who was not barred from testifying, claimed such technique is not at all proven to yield accurate results. The court agreed.

The Vietnam vet was not identified as an expert witness, nor qualified as one during his testimony as far as I can tell. The State claims this testimony has caught them by surprise. I believe the court will take up the issue after the lunch break.

[Reny of Storms End]

Yes, two experts for the State were not allowed to testify because their opinions were based on techniques not generally accepted in the scientific community. One looped the few seconds of usable audio several times to get to the minimum thirty seconds needed for accurate voice identification. The FBI audio expert for the defense, who was not barred from testifying, claimed such technique is not at all proven to yield accurate results. The court agreed.

The Vietnam vet was not identified as an expert witness, nor qualified as one during his testimony as far as I can tell. The State claims this testimony has caught them by surprise. I believe the court will take up the issue after the lunch break.

Thanks for your response. It cleared up my questions.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes, two experts for the State were not allowed to testify because their opinions were based on techniques not generally accepted in the scientific community. One looped the few seconds of usable audio several times to get to the minimum thirty seconds needed for accurate voice identification. The FBI audio expert for the defense, who was not barred from testifying, claimed such technique is not at all proven to yield accurate results. The court agreed.

The Vietnam vet was not identified as an expert witness, nor qualified as one during his testimony as far as I can tell. The State claims this testimony has caught them by surprise. I believe the court will take up the issue after the lunch break.

This is an interesting issue. The FBI expert's statement that death screams are different apparently stands, and is admissible. At that point, you could argue that even lay voice identification shouldn't be admissible. I mean, the mother is testifying that "I know my son's voice, and that's him." "The vet testifies, I know Zimmerman's voice, I've heard death screams, and that's him." What a mess.

[Tempra]

Seems like all of us self-appointed judges here agree that the vet's testimony should be tossed.... But hey, is this another example of the prosecution failing to make a timely objection?

ETA: Er, wait a minute. It seems that it was the FBI voice expert who previously testified that death screams are different from other screams, not this vet. It was just this vet who said the voice was Zimmerman's, so it's not him that was offering the expert testimony. Was all of that FBI expert's testimony stricken, including this nugget about death screams being different?

None of his testimony was stricken. He claimed death screams are different than regular screams, but made no attempt to ID the screams as Zimmerman's or Martin's because the audio quality was too poor and not long enough to reach any type of conclusions.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

None of his testimony was stricken. He claimed death screams are different than regular screams, but made no attempt to ID the screams as Zimmerman's or Martin's because the audio quality was too poor and not long enough to reach any type of conclusions.

So the expert says the voices can't be identified, but there's all these lay witnesses testifying that they can? Just seems....odd to me.

[Merentha]

So the expert says the voices can't be identified, but there's all these lay witnesses testifying that they can? Just seems....odd to me.

Yeah, to me too. Isn't there some lawyerly way of saying "objection: this is bullshit!" and go from there?

[Tempra]

So the expert says the voices can't be identified, but there's all these lay witnesses testifying that they can? Just seems....odd to me.

The prosecutor got the expert to admit that lay witness testimony of those familiar with Martin/Zimmerman would be the most accurate way to ID the voice yelling for help. Defense counsel got the expert to caveat that statement with death screams being different than regular screams.

It's a mess. The audio probably should have been excluded under FRE 403* because its probative value is so low and the chance for prejudice (confusion) so high. Alas, here we are.

ETA: *I assume the State rules have something similar to FRE 403.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The prosecutor got the expert to admit that lay witness testimony of those familiar with Martin/Zimmerman would be the most accurate way to ID the voice yelling for help. Defense counsel got the expert to caveat that statement with death screams being different than regular screams.

It's going to be an interesting argument on excluding that vet's testimony, then, because he's certainly no less qualified to testify about the voices than any other lay witnesses. I suppose maybe an isntruction asking the jury to disregard his statement that he was a battlefield medic and heard death screams is about as far as you could go. But cripe, that's a tough thing to expect them to "unhear" when they're permitted to take into account his lay opinion.

Personally, I think the whole motion might just draw more attention to it than it's worth. Maybe better just to get that vet to admit that he'd never heard eiether Martin's or Zimmerman's death scream before, and just muck the whole thing up and essentially argue that all that stuff should be disregarded.

But then, that loses them the mother's testimony as well. Still, given how that whole "death scream" issue seems to have gone south for the prosecution, having the jury disregard it entire may be better than the alternative.

[Guest Raidne]

At this point, IMO, the best solution would be to just allow all the expert testimony on identification of the voices in so the jury can hear the evidence on how unreliable any claim to identify the voices is since the cat's already out of the bag.

Imagine that the issue was whether some handwritten statement was Zimmerman's or Martin's. The judge excluded expert handwriting analysis on the basis of one expert who said that because the sample only included two letters, no reliable determination could be made as to the identify of its author. Then, Martin's mother gets up and is allowed to swear that she recognizes that handwriting as her son's. Then Zimmerman's friends say they recognize that handwriting as their friend's. Then, some friend of Zimmerman's says that, because he worked as a bank employee who investigated forgeries 50 years ago, he knows that the handwriting is Zimmerman's. I mean, come on.

[Tempra]

The jurors have now learned why the State did not call Martin's father to testify about whether it was his son calling for help. Two police officers just testified that Martin's dad said the voice crying for help on the 911 call was not his son. Mother said yes, the father said no. The voice ID war must now slant decidedly in Zimmerman's favor.

[Madfunkymonkey]

Zimmerman's MMA trainer says that Zimmerman had trouble trowing a punch. There goes that theory.

[awesome possum]

:rofl:

[thecryptile]

Zimmerman's MMA trainer says that Zimmerman had trouble trowing a punch. There goes that theory.

Maybe he has trouble throwing a punch by MMA standards, but it's not like Zimmerman is unable to move his arms. Going by non-professional fighter standards, I'm pretty sure he could punch someone. The fact that he's even tried MMA training says as much to me.

[Sci-2]

Zimmerman's MMA trainer says that Zimmerman had trouble trowing a punch. There goes that theory.

A person who sucks at fighting can still instigate a conflict.

That said, the evidence points to acquittal on all charges. Civil suit might have a different outcome though.

[Tempra]

The State's motion to strike the Vietnam vet's testimony has been denied. Win for Zimmerman.

ETA: WOW! Judge is going to let in evidence that Trayvon had marijuana in his system because it is relevant to Zimmerman's self-defense claim. Didn't think that was going to happen...

ETA2: judge wont allow defense to call former police officer as expert to testify whether Zimmerman acted lawfully or showed restraint during confrontation with Martin.

Parties are now fighting over whether defense can use a video animation to demonstrate what the fight would have looked like.