Judge: No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The judge in the murder trial of George Zimmerman said Saturday that prosecution audio experts who point to Trayvon Martin as screaming on a 911 call moments before he was killed won't be allowed to testify at trial.

Judge Debra Nelson reached her decision after hearing arguments that stretched over several days this month on whether to allow testimony from two prosecution experts. One expert ruled out Zimmerman as the screamer and another said it was Martin. Defense experts argued there was not enough audio to determine who the screams are coming from. Zimmerman's attorneys also argued that the state experts' analysis is flawed.

Nelson ruled that the methods used by the experts aren't reliable. But her ruling doesn't prevent the 911 calls from being played at trial.

The elimination of the audio experts will likely shorten the trial by a week. Before the ruling, attorneys had predicted the trial could last two to four weeks after opening statements.

A spokeswoman for prosecutors didn't immediately return an email Saturday.

Audio experts from both sides testified at different times during the hearing, which stretched over three weeks. Voice experts were hired by lawyers and news organizations to analyze the calls, which were made during the confrontation between the two. The experts arrived at mixed conclusions.

In deciding whether to admit the voice-recognition technology used by prosecution audio experts Tom Owen and Alan Reich, Nelson had to determine whether it is too novel or whether it has been accepted by the scientific community at-large.

"There is no evidence to establish that their scientific techniques have been tested and found reliable," the judge said in her ruling.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130622/US--Neighborhood.Watch-Audio/

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It would have been nice to know though.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-no-audio-testimony-zimmerman-trial-140933201.html

Audio "experts" who have no proven basis for their opinions, other than the person signing the check to pay for them, have been ruled out in the GZ trial. This is expected to shorten the trial by at least a week, therby speeding justice along.

TMs family could not be reached for comment but had recently said they "had every confidence" GZ would be convicted.

Trial experts agreed, "the key to a self defense plea is being the one that shows up in court"

Having ruled out most of the irrelevent BS, the jury will be able to decide if a person is entitled to use deadly force when they are in reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It would have been nice to know though.

Why?

You want unsubstantiated, unproven, unscientific testimony? You can get all of that you want right here at this forum.

The judge is interested in relevent, substantiated evidence. Not rumors. Why are you so opposed to a fair trial for GZ?

[Bugs 455]

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-no-audio-testimony-zimmerman-trial-140933201.html

Audio "experts" who have no proven basis for their opinions, other than the person signing the check to pay for them, have been ruled out in the GZ trial. This is expected to shorten the trial by at least a week, therby speeding justice along.

TMs family could not be reached for comment but had recently said they "had every confidence" GZ would be convicted.

Trial experts agreed, "the key to a self defense plea is being the one that shows up in court"

Having ruled out most of the irrelevent BS, the jury will be able to decide if a person is entitled to use deadly force when they are in reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury.

Not taking sides here, but I am fairly certain that the jury will be making a decision on whether or not Mr. Zimmerman had reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury when using deadly force, not on whether a person is entitled to use deadly force when in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Zimmermann's lawyers wanted to have a long list of terms banned but they largely failed in that effort. Despite the lawyers trying to ban it, the truth may be spoken in the court of law.

Earlier on Friday, the judge ruled on the defense’s motion to ban certain terms. Denying the request, the judge ruled the state can say Zimmerman “profiled,” but not racially. Other terms the defense sought to ban — including “vigilante,” “wannabe cop,” and “got out of the car after police (or dispatcher) told him not to” — will also be allowed.

Judge Nelson said the state is allowed to say that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin, but the state agreed to stay away from saying the black teenager was "racially profiled." Prosecutors can also say that Zimmerman initiated the neighborhood watch at the Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision, and that he was appointed captain. The judge also allowed the following terms the defense sought to ban:

• "Vigilante"
• "Wannabe cop"
• He "got out of the car after police (or dispatcher) told him not to"
• He "confronted" Trayvon Martin.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not taking sides here, but I am fairly certain that the jury will be making a decision on whether or not Mr. Zimmerman had reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury when using deadly force, not on whether a person is entitled to use deadly force when in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

Stop making sense. Gary doesn't react well to that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

He is saying the same thing I do and he is correct.

The jury will decide if he was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury while having his head smashed on the sidewalk.

I am good with that.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[RGinWA 816]

Regardless of the outcome, could the TM family sue Florida citing that the "stand your ground" law essential created a situation where SYG contributed to the death based on a willingness to be confrontational knowing the any injury or death would be justified?

Just a thought

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Why?

You want unsubstantiated, unproven, unscientific testimony? You can get all of that you want right here at this forum.

The judge is interested in relevent, substantiated evidence. Not rumors. Why are you so opposed to a fair trial for GZ?

Why are you so opposed to thinking GZ might be in the wrong?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not taking sides here, but I am fairly certain that the jury will be making a decision on whether or not Mr. Zimmerman had reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury when using deadly force, not on whether a person is entitled to use deadly force when in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

correct and I do not disagree.

There is no need to decide "if a person is entitled to..." as the law clearly states they are. I phrased it wrong.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Regardless of the outcome, could the TM family sue Florida citing that the "stand your ground" law essential created a situation where SYG contributed to the death based on a willingness to be confrontational knowing the any injury or death would be justified?

Just a thought

Why not? Lawyers need to make money.

The problme would be that if any state "legalizes" anything or allows to remain legal something which could be considered to "cause" someones death, then the state would be liable also. It is a can of worms no court is going to open IMO.

Not to mention the immunity most states have except for gross negligence, discrimination, etc.

The audio experts were ruled out because they could not demonstrate that their testimony was valid. This is the proper ruling.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why are you so opposed to thinking GZ might be in the wrong?

It doesn't fit well with the NRA agenda. After all, it doesn't look good if another "lawfully" armed citizen is convicted of negligent homicide, manslaughter or murder.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Not taking sides here, but I am fairly certain that the jury will be making a decision on whether or not Mr. Zimmerman had reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury when using deadly force, not on whether a person is entitled to use deadly force when in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

If you don't mind we don't like to discuss GZ and guns here

Edited June 22, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

correct and I do not disagree.

There is no need to decide "if a person is entitled to..." as the law clearly states they are. I phrased it wrong.

Wow what a bummer.. Someone was not expecting you to take that correction well.. Oh well they bat about a .095 anyway