Hey, I have a question. Is that OK, for me to ask a question on this thread?Does anyone have a list of the defense's Frye motions? I was waiting for JB to file the list of specific issues, but it looks like we aren't going to be seeing it until HHJP clears up JB's "confusion." :gavel:
Hey, I have a question. Is that OK, for me to ask a question on this thread?
It is not so.
I think what you're thinking of is evidence that is too "prejudicial" when compared to its probative value. What this means is that you look at the "probative value" of the evidence--i.e., how much does it tend to prove anything important (especially GUILT)--and then balance it against the "prejudicial value" of the evidence--i.e., how much does it tend to suggest something bad OTHER THAN GUILT? Evidence that very very strongly tends to suggest guilt will NOT be kept out.
As for the jail video, it is not really probative at all from what I've heard, because Casey's behavior is consistent with a guilty mother who realizes she has been caught but also with an innocent mother who realizes her child's body has been found and goes a little nuts and then a little into denial. In other words, the video (at least from the descriptions I've seen of it) won't really help the jury figure out if she's guilty or innocent. So IMO it is likely to be thrown out for irrelevance, before the judge even gets to the question of prejudice.
ETA: I just saw that Mr. Hornsby answered your question also. His answer mentions an additional problem with the jail video--it might be thrown out because it was sneakily obtained by the jail staff, acting on behalf of the State, in an attempt to get Casey to say (or do) something incriminating without her lawyer present.
Sorry, AZ, that you aren't being compensated.
, (7) were not found in gasoline, (8) were not found in the air from the OSCO forensics garage, (9) were not found in a "test blank" (I guess this controls for chemicals in the testing equipment itself?), and (10) were found in the air from a blanket that was wrapped around a decomposing child kept in a trunk for a period of time in another murder case.
This is just something you need before you can go to an out-of-state witness and compel them to appear for the trial.
BBM: That's exactly what hasn't been validated sufficiently. The scientists, IMO, have a good hypothesis going that these chemicals "signal" decomp, but their database is too small, too private, and contains too few comparisons.
We got the air analysis report a really long time ago. My notes say that there were 6 chemicals identified in the air "off-gassed" from the trunk carpet that (1) are "associated with" decomp, (2) were not found in the air from the trunk carpet of a car of the same make and model, (3) were not found in the air from the trash bag items, (4) were not found in the air from the vehicle interior, (5) were not found in the air from the lab, (6) were not found in the air from an old pizza
I agree--I was very convinced until I really started thinking about it from a Frye standpoint. The questionable part is, what do they mean by chemicals "associated with decomposition"? How many chemicals did they test? How many tests did they run? On what subjects? How STRONGLY were those chemicals "associated" with decomp? What other things are those same chemicals associated with? The database is secret, the test results are secret, they likely haven't had THAT many bodies to test (especially if they need to run repeated tests on bodies that decomposed in different environments, etc.)...there are just a lot of unanswered questions, and I suspect if the answers were provided they would indicate that a lot more validation testing is needed.
And why was the decomposing squirrel they tested not included in their chart of chemicals found? :waitasec:
ETA: By the way, this of course is the point of the Frye hearings--to keep away from the jury things that look really convincing but might be wrong.
