2011.04.08 Frye Hearing Summary Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chiquita71

New Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
3,835
Reaction score
2
DSimms: by the time dr. hall arrived at the scene. The top layer had been removed. Sixty to eighty thousand plants in FL. Did not indenitify the plants that made up the roots in the bag.
 
DSimms: he did not document which roots. did not tell us the names of the root. if I may provide the state with a ruler to show them how tiny two mm is.
 
DSimms: as the court can see, two mm is very small. In his depo he says he cannot determine growth rate. Re: he science, and conclusions. He admits the plants grow faster than the rate in his report. did not measure the length although he says that is one way to measure the growth. He is in our opinion your honor a lay witness.
 
DSimms: he has no standards and he conducted no experiment of plant growth through bone. if someone's life depends on his hypothsis one would hope...he did not analyze the soil. Dr. Jane Bock, she spend hours to find data or support for what Dr. Hall says. She looked through seventy articles and found nothing. You cannot est root growth speed, which is what dr. hall has done.

D.Simms: if we apply dr. halls logic to a zoologist, measure the tip of a tale on that animal and tell me what kind of animal this is...no science to support it...
 
JA: saying he can't see something.
DSimms asking if she can give him something
Judge: yes.
 
DSimms: Dr. Hall is nothing more than a speculative witness that watched plants grow.
JA: can we do the motions seperately.
HH: folks do not talk over each other, okay
DSimms: okay
HH: are you finished?
DSimms: yes
HH: mr ashton you want to argue your side?
 
JA; Didn't cross because this is not relevant legally. Court has to see evidence in context of issues at trial.
 
JA: none of that addresses the issues. Issues are relevance, which cannot be addressed pre-trial. Dr. Hall is a qualified botanist. Dr. Hall is allowing the jury to understand better how long these things might have been out there. I would submit the state has no burden because the state has said this is not Frye. This is not the trial, the people watching now are not the jury. No president to exclude. It will be up to a jury to decide if dr. hall or the other is right, or reject both. As this is written it must fail. Thank you.

DSIMMS: wanting to respond.
 
DSimms: there is no scientific working groups for root growth. There are no standards for it.


(aggggggggggggg. i am sorry my finger slipped)
 
DCS attacking FBI witness Lowe re: hair banding
 
DCS saying Lowe's opinion would be VERY prejudicial and not probative. (I think she got that half right.)
 
DSimms: the forensic science has not gotten the meaning of consistant with "meaning" reference to that pages highlighted give to the court. Reading from a page of paper...non numerical statement given without imperical support...now there is a virgina article...if I may...I had highlighted...in this particular situation in 2009 what they did was they looked at 137 cases...

JA: not relevant to the standards of admisson...

DSimms: at least proffer why I think this argument...this is a case where they were clearly not guilty the authors wanted to go back and say why were they convicted when they were innocent. 60% of the evidence called by the state had not data...
 
HH: cited by the state
DSimms: that was a case where hair decomp was admitted. Individuals make errors.
 
DSimms: expert testimony should be that, your honor...expert when someone's life is on the line.

HH: are you going to comment on the new york case?

DSimms: no
 
Judge - Does any US Supreme Court, any Federal Court or Florida Supreme Court, disallow testimony dealing with hair comparison?

DCS - A Florida case allows hair comparison, but this is not hair comparison. This is an allegation of decomp, not just comparison. I am not aware of a case.

Judge - What about the NY case?

DCS - Yes it was admitted there.
 
JA: this is all nice argument but has nothing to do with a legal standard. There is an artifact of darkening band, noted in literature since 1998, the concept is generally accepted. Motion should be denied.
 
DSimms: the state brought up the standards with regard to a frye hearing. the state has provided only miss lowe, they have the burden to prove the methodology and underlying science is valid. The court room is not a lab.

JA: objection there is no evidence before this court to any other case.

DSimms: wants court to take judicial notice of this case...

JA: of what? transcripts? that should have been admitted before


DSimms: I'm not arguing the case...
 
HH: there was a motion that was filed(speaking of this other case)but what are you asking me to take judicial notice of?
 
FIREWORKS...HHJP raised his voice. CM and DS talking, JA objecting all at the same time.
 
HHJP: "LISTEN FOLKS! It's one lawyer at a time."

I'm thinking everyone better tread very lightly today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
1,561
Total visitors
1,614

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,955
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top