The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

[KatieG]

As suggested by Darat, I'm starting this thread to cover the trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Travyon Martin. Currently, the trial is scheduled to begin June 10.

The plan is to keep the focus of this thread to the trial only. Witnesses, testimony, phone records, emails, forensic evidence and experts, state and defense exhibits, lots of things that will start to make sense when we see it all laid out.

 

[AdMan]

Guilty!

Oops, sorry.

 

[lionking]

Thanks Katie.

 

[KatieG]

Guilty!

Oops, sorry.

Yer such a bad boy!

 

[BenBurch]

Finally this circus will be over. I hope justice is done.

 

[lionking]

So can someone please outline, or link to, the process from here? Will the trial actually commence on June 10, or be adjourned for some reason? Is there an expected duration for the trial? Will it be televised, and if so where?

I could probably google all this, but I'm sure some of you have this down pat.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Guilty!

Oops, sorry.

Poll hasn't appeared yet.

 

[Cylinder]

So can someone please outline, or link to, the process from here? Will the trial actually commence on June 10, or be adjourned for some reason? Is there an expected duration for the trial? Will it be televised, and if so where?

I could probably google all this, but I'm sure some of you have this down pat.

Right now, they are still working through pre-trial issues. There is an evidentiary hearing May 28 which is the next docket date. They are arguing what should and should not be allowed as evidence. Zimmerman is also appealing the court's order that prohibited him from taking a deposition from Ben Crump who is the Martin family attorney. That decision may be released today as that court releases opinions on Friday.

Starting June 10, they will start picking a jury, which should last at least a week - maybe even 2. The trial itself will probably last 2 weeks. Those estimates are from the last couple of status conferences.

The court was fairly adamant that the schedule would be upheld unless something extraordinary happens. I'm guessing that the defense will get a week's delay if they win the appeal. Zimmerman is also asking for a delay if the voice experts are admitted, but that is unlikely, IMO.

Some resources to get a basic idea of the issues at hand:

George Zimmerman Legal Case - the website of Zimmerman's legal team. It posts motions and orders fairly quickly. If you're looking for filings that aren't in the main page, look at the links in the right margin under @GZLEGALCASE.

18th Circuit Media Advisories - the court's website for this case. This include all pleadings, but does not include discovery (evidence) exhibits. There is often signifigant delay in items being posted here, but once they are posted they are easier to find.

Seminole County Clerk of Court Docket for Zimmerman - this is a real-time summary of events in the case. This page will show events as they are entered into the system. It's a great place to see if anything new has been filed, but it is summary only - they don't post the text of the pleadings. It also reads bottom-to-top for each individual entry.

5th District Court of Appeals docket for Zimmerman - a list of appeals for this case.

Axiom Amnesia - a decent place to find most of the evidence exhibits. It's sometimes hard to find specific items. The first two discovery exhibits posted there contain ~75% of the evidence in this case.

 

[12AX7]

Subscribed.

 

[lionking]

Thanks Cylinder.

 

[KatieG]

Right now, they are still working through pre-trial issues. There is an evidentiary hearing May 28 which is the next docket date. They are arguing what should and should not be allowed as evidence. Zimmerman is also appealing the court's order that prohibited him from taking a deposition from Ben Crump who is the Martin family attorney. That decision may be released today as that court releases opinions on Friday.

Starting June 10, they will start picking a jury, which should last at least a week - maybe even 2. The trial itself will probably last 2 weeks. Those estimates are from the last couple of status conferences.

The court was fairly adamant that the schedule would be upheld unless something extraordinary happens. I'm guessing that the defense will get a week's delay if they win the appeal. Zimmerman is also asking for a delay if the voice experts are admitted, but that is unlikely, IMO.

Some resources to get a basic idea of the issues at hand:

George Zimmerman Legal Case - the website of Zimmerman's legal team. It posts motions and orders fairly quickly. If you're looking for filings that aren't in the main page, look at the links in the right margin under @GZLEGALCASE.

18th Circuit Media Advisories - the court's website for this case. This include all pleadings, but does not include discovery (evidence) exhibits. There is often signifigant delay in items being posted here, but once they are posted they are easier to find.

Seminole County Clerk of Court Docket for Zimmerman - this is a real-time summary of events in the case. This page will show events as they are entered into the system. It's a great place to see if anything new has been filed, but it is summary only - they don't post the text of the pleadings. It also reads bottom-to-top for each individual entry.

5th District Court of Appeals docket for Zimmerman - a list of appeals for this case.

Axiom Amnesia - a decent place to find most of the evidence exhibits. It's sometimes hard to find specific items. The first two discovery exhibits posted there contain ~75% of the evidence in this case.

Thanks Cylinder!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So I haven't followed this much since around the time the story hit the media. Will the defense invoke the stand your ground portion of the self defense statute? Early on I heard yes, then no, then yes.

ETA: And I'm assuming they'll use the affirmative defense of self defense.

 

[Cylinder]

So I haven't followed this much since around the time the story hit the media. Will the defense invoke the stand your ground portion of the self defense statute? Early on I heard yes, then no, then yes.

ETA: And I'm assuming they'll use the affirmative defense of self defense.

Zimmerman waived a pre-trial immunity hearing, if that's the part you're referring to. He can still raise the issue at trial.

 

[johnny karate]

So I haven't followed this much since around the time the story hit the media. Will the defense invoke the stand your ground portion of the self defense statute? Early on I heard yes, then no, then yes.

ETA: And I'm assuming they'll use the affirmative defense of self defense.

Zimmerman waived a pre-trial immunity hearing, if that's the part you're referring to. He can still raise the issue at trial.

Just to clarify: Zimmerman waived his right to a Stand Your Ground hearing. That will not be a component of this trial at any time. But the door has been left open for standard immunity to be granted during the trial.

 

[Unabogie]

Coming up is a motion from the defense for a Frye hearing to preclude the state from introducing audio experts who would rule out Zimmerman as a source of the screams.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/05/15/clueless-in-orlando/

This guy will get some folks into a lather, but he wrote the following about the motion:

The State objected to a Frye hearing on the ground that the defense request lacked sufficient specificity to identify the basis for the defense request and, in any event, the Frye rule does not apply in this case because the technology/methodology used by its experts is not new. They correctly noted that the Frye rule only applies to new or novel scientific evidence. This is an additional valid reason for the court to deny the motion for a Frye hearing.

The defense has also filed a bizarre motion that would permit the defense experts to testify by video conferencing from remote locations. O’Mara basically pleads poverty in support of his request by complaining that the defense cannot afford to pay their round trip transportation, hotel and food expenses.

I don't think I'd call it bizarre so much as stupid.

Indeed, I commented there:

Do they really think a remote expert will be convincing? That seems like madness. Any human being will trust the guy in the room over the guy on Skype. It’s human nature.

I personally would want to see an expert witness in person so I could judge his demeanor and body language. I would think the judge should grant the motion if that's what the defense wants, but I think it's a bad move on their part. I don't think a Frye hearing is in order since this isn't new technology and has been used in court multiple times already.

But we'll see how the judge rules.

 

[Cylinder]

Coming up is a motion from the defense for a Frye hearing to preclude the state from introducing audio experts who would rule out Zimmerman as a source of the screams.

Not true.

Hollien/Harnsberger

The opinions to follow are based primarily on the aural perceptual evaluations described above. As was stated, even though many problems were evident, the evidence recording provided minimum-to-marginal material for identification purposes. Moreover, the exemplar recordings contained enough material to permit a number of different judgments to be made.

Based on the many analyses carried out, the undersigned had to conclude that, while there is evidence to suggest that Mr. Martin made the first two calls/cries (Nos. 1 and 8) and that Mr. Zimmeman made those identified as 14 and 16, none of these conclusions reached the criterion for a match. Neither speaker could be identified as being responsible for the others.

Even after (or because of) the deviation from normal procedures they describe in their report, their results were inconclusive. There is nothing in this report to "rule out Zimmerman as a source of the screams." There is nothing that rules out Zimmerman as the source of any scream.

I don't think a Frye hearing is in order since this isn't new technology and has been used in court multiple times already.

Not true. Cite any example of voice identification accepted without specific word exemplars, an example of scream-to-scream identification or an example of word-to-scream identification. Those are the methods used here.

Dr. Hirotake Nakasone, the FBI examiner intitially tasked to do a voice analysis and someone who would be familiar with the state of technology, concluded:

Critical listening and digital signal analyses further revealad that the screaming voice on the 911 call is of insufficient voice quality and duration to conduct meaningful voice comparison with any otherr voice samples primarily due to the screaming voice being: (1) produced under an extreme emotional state, (2) limited in the number of words and phrases uttered, (3) superimposed by other voices most of the time, and (4) distant, reverberant and very low signal level.

That's the government's expert - not Zimmerman's.

To their credit Drs. Hollien and Harnsberger preface their anaysis with the following as their first sentence:

As expected, the samples on the 9-I l evidence recording were not at all suitable for ordinary speaker identification analyses.

Florida adopts its standard for scientific evidence from a US Supreme Court opinion, Frye v. United States. In that case, the court set out a very basic test for reliablilty:

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.

Two of three state experts dispute that subjecting this recording to voice identification is a "well-recognized scientific principle" that has been "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs."

Reich, OTOH, is a snake-oil saleman. His report contains very basic errors of fact (CALL1 was not a 911 call), is laced with opinion outside the scope of his examination or expertise (Reich opines what a fact witness may have thought to bolster his own pseudoscience claims and attributes specific fact motives to phrases he claims to hear), uses his own bias as opinion evidence (Zimmerman's speech is "reminiscent of a evangelical preacher or carnival barker") and omits commensurate conclusions (claims to hear words for which no evidence exists but fails to identify speech that is undisputed through multiple earwitness testimony.) Reich's own methods are disputed by the state's other expert opinions. Lacking the integrity of Drs. Drs. Hollien and Harnsberger , Reich does not couch his conclusions in uncertainty - instead he dresses up his dogma with the very thinest veneer of scientific method.

 

[Unabogie]

Not true.

Hollien/Harnsberger

Even after (or because of) the deviation from normal procedures they describe in their report, their results were inconclusive. There is nothing in this report to "rule out Zimmerman as a source of the screams." There is nothing that rules out Zimmerman as the source of any scream.

If this were true, then why is the defense trying to preclude ANY experts from testifying? If they had an expert in their pocket or if the state's witness helped them, why are they in panic mode?

Not true. Cite any example of voice identification accepted without specific word exemplars, an example of scream-to-scream identification or an example of word-to-scream identification. Those are the methods used here.

They do have voices, since they invited George to replicate his own screams. It's not the state's fault that his wimpy yelps sound nothing like the screams heard on tape, is it?

Dr. Hirotake Nakasone, the FBI examiner intitially tasked to do a voice analysis and someone who would be familiar with the state of technology, concluded:



That's the government's expert - not Zimmerman's.

Then the defense should have no problem with him testifying, right?

To their credit Drs. Hollien and Harnsberger preface their anaysis with the following as their first sentence:

Then the defense should have no problem with him testifying, right?

Florida adopts its standard for scientific evidence from a US Supreme Court opinion, Frye v. United States. In that case, the court set out a very basic test for reliablilty:

As I said, we'll see how the judge rules.

Two of three state experts dispute that subjecting this recording to voice identification is a "well-recognized scientific principle" that has been "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs."

Reich, OTOH, is a snake-oil saleman. His report contains very basic errors of fact (CALL1 was not a 911 call), is laced with opinion outside the scope of his examination or expertise (Reich opines what a fact witness may have thought to bolster his own pseudoscience claims and attributes specific fact motives to phrases he claims to hear), uses his own bias as opinion evidence (Zimmerman's speech is "reminiscent of a evangelical preacher or carnival barker") and omits commensurate conclusions (claims to hear words for which no evidence exists but fails to identify speech that is undisputed through multiple earwitness testimony.) Reich's own methods are disputed by the state's other expert opinions. Lacking the integrity of Drs. Drs. Hollien and Harnsberger , Reich does not couch his conclusions in uncertainty - instead he dresses up his dogma with the very thinest veneer of scientific method.

Wow, then he should be easy to impeach at trial when he testifies.

 

[WildCat]

LOL that people here on a critical thinking board are jumping on the voice expert snake oil. Might as well have Sylvia Browne testify, she'd be just as credible.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-fl...ce/-/14266478/20184176/-/1s5laqz/-/index.html

George Zimmerman's defense confirmed to WESH 2 that they will move forward with a new motion to delay his upcoming murder trial.

 

[Cylinder]

If this were true, then why is the defense trying to preclude ANY experts from testifying?

Because the rules of evidence seem to prohibit this type of testimony or at least suggests that it is subject to review by the court.

If they had an expert in their pocket or if the state's witness helped them, why are they in panic mode?

Do you have any evidence of panic mode? If it's "non-trial stuff" I think it's been suggested that there is another thread for that. I'm suggesting that Zimmerman will use the state's expert opinion as evidence of the reliablilty of those opinions.

They do have voices, since they invited George to replicate his own screams.

You really should read the reports so we can base our discussion in fact. They didn't use specific word exemplars. Scream identification isn't. Otherwise, it's been suggested that there is another thread for "non-trial stuff."

Then the defense should have no problem with him testifying, right?


Then the defense should have no problem with him testifying, right?

I'm pretty confident that Zimmerman plans on using those expert opinions as evidence of reliability.