George Zimmerman: Jury Selection Begins

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:54:00 AM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: You can watch the proceedings live here. We are doing live updates in the forums here. Comments on the day's proceedings are here.

Update: Defense jury expert: Robert Hirschhorn. Mark O'Mara made another motion for continuance which was denied.

Jury selection begins today in the George Zimmerman trial. The pre-trial Frye hearing has not been concluded.

500 jurors received summonses. About 100 to 200 will appear tommorrow to begin filling out questionnaires.

There will be six jurors on the case. They will be sequestered when the trial starts. [More....]

I expect both sides to have jury consultants either in the courtroom or right outside, doing background checks by computer.

O'Mara wants the trial to stay in Seminole County. The demographics are good for his case.

Check out this 2012 Duke University study of two Florida counties on the difference in conviction rates for both blacks and whites when there are no black jurors selected, and only one black juror. A white person has a greater chance of acquittal with no black jurors. His odds of conviction go up with even one black juror. The full study is here.

In cases with no blacks in the jury pool, blacks were convicted 81 percent of the time, and whites were convicted 66 percent of the time.
When the jury pool included at least one black person, the conviction rates were nearly identical: 71 percent for black defendants, 73 for white defendants

As to the issue of concealed gun permits, in Seminole County, there are 16,675 concealed carry licenses out of a population of 277,789. Percent Licensed: 6. The 2012 Census Statistics for Seminole County are here.

Should be an interesting day. Our commenting rules for this case are here. I recommend reading them before commenting as objectionable comments will be deleted when called to my attention. If you want to participate in the forums and have not registered, send me an email with your desired user name and I will register you. Due to spambots, automatic registration is not available. Registration is not necessary if you just want to read them.

< NSA Leak Source Comes Forward | Monday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

George Zimmerman: Jury Selection Begins | 49 comments (49 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Surprising the jury will be sequestered given (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:27:47 AM EST

the amount of information/misinformation freely available to them prior to being sworn as jurors.

Has the Duke study been criticized?

audio (none / 0) (#2)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:22:56 AM EST

Let me see if I have this right on the audio experts . . .
There are 2 experts who have said that we can't tell who it is, either because the recording is too short or because the quality is too bad and they are Peter French in the UK and Doddington of the NSA.

There are 2 experts who have claimed that the screams were not from Zimmerman and they are Reich and Ted Owen . . .

I thought I saw a clip yesterday of an expert saying he believed it was Zimmerman?

How many experts are the with their views on this?

Partly right (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:48:52 AM EST

There have been 3 defense experts who conclude at least that it is not possible to scientifically assign the screams to a person. In addition to French and Doddington, there is Nakasone of the FBI.

One of the state experts, H&H (actually two people, but they signed onto one report) said the last scream was more likely Zimmerman.

Owen says he ruled out Zimmerman, but Doddington claims that the pitch shift method used by Owen guarantees a mismatch, even (especially) if the comparison is the same speaker.

There are a number of so-called experts hired by the press, not named in the case. ABC's new expert says "Zimmerman."


one more (none / 0) (#4)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:51:37 AM EST

Nakasone on the defense side says we can't tell.


: I think Nakasones (FBI) statement was that (none / 0) (#6)
by leftwig on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:25:46 PM EST

no one can tell with any level of certainty given the brevity and quality of the recording as well as the duress under which the person making the screams was under, not just that he couldn't tell.
I imagine both sides could come up with "experts" that didn't use accepted scientific methods to claim it was one person or another (or maybe neither) that was the source of the screams.

one expert (none / 0) (#7)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:57:34 PM EST

the state's expert with the strongest views seems to be Tom Owen . . . and he is also one who profits from the sale of software used to analysis the voices . . . and also one who violated his own protocols for analysis, by duplicating or doubling the length of the tape under analysis, cause the protocols call for a certain length of tape to be analysed, and he didn't have it. Is that right?


On Owen (none / 0) (#10)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 02:17:25 PM EST

Yes, that's a correct correspondence.

I don't think he's making much money, but selling software appears to be a motive for getting involved. He did the work for Orlando Sentinel for free.

Not only did he violate his standard protocol, he did so in a way that defense experts say will ALWAYS produce a mismatch. Like a two-head coin, will always come up heads. So, by flipping this two-head coin, the expert rules out tails. Every time. Guaranteed.


: personal attack on Tom Owen (none / 0) (#19)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:55:54 PM EST

deleted for containing potentially libelous accusations. I have worked with Tom Owen and he is reputable and professional. I may disagree with his methodology and conclusions in this case, but he is a bona fide audio/video expert.
Personal unsubstantiated attacks are not welcome here.What you read elsewhere on the internet is not fact.

more analysis and questions (none / 0) (#13)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:20:28 PM EST

Supposedly Tom Owen is using his software and the software produces a likelihood of match . . . apparently the real questions include these:
1) if we give the computer 500 voice samples and ask it to find any and all matches, how many "false positives" will there be and how many "false negatives" will there be and how many correct matches?

Has any study been done to document the accuracy rate, and what protocols were used? If the protocols are modified by the requirements of this case such as many of the samples are only 2 seconds long, how many false positives would there be and how many false negatives?


What difference does the accuracy make? (none / 0) (#15)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:36:19 PM EST

There are all sorts of variables in your proposed test, that you haven't defined. Supposedly, with reasonably length and quality of comparison samples, the software does a good job. Set duration of sample aside, even though shorter duration results in less reliable conclusions.

If the pitch-shift method produces 100% mismatch, the error rate of the tester on non-pitch-shifted samples is irrelevant.

I think it was my cat that got the PhD.


the pitch shift method (none / 0) (#16)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:48:10 PM EST

what is the pitch shift method . . . and why is Tom Owen using it? What is the accuracy of the software with the pitch-shift method, or is that completely unknown?


Pitch shift (none / 0) (#20)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:56:45 PM EST

Take a person's normal voice, and take that same person's scream. The scream will be at a higher pitch than the normal voice. So, "pitch shift" the known person normal voice to match the fundamental frequency of the scream.

According to Doddington, when you do this, you will ALWAYS get a "no-match" conclusion. This is because the entire spectrum shifts "the same amount" with an artificial pitch shift, but the various overtones in a voice do not shift "the same amount" when a person raised the fundamental pitch of their voice.

If you are seeking a "no match" conclusion, the pitch shift method will ALWAYS yield that. The accuracy depends on the input. If you have different people between the sample and the scream, then "no match" is (ALWAYS) correct; but if you have the same person in a normal voice and a scream, "no match" is (ALWAYS) incorrect.

The pitch-shift method is incapable of matching a person with his scream.


zimmerman (none / 0) (#23)
by morphic on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:02:55 PM EST

You can't exactly match an uncompressed tape recorded voice, with a compressed cellphone voice. And that's in a normal tone of voice.


: Compression is different (none / 0) (#24)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:14:52 PM EST

From what I gather, pitch shifting (assuming its a substantial shift, and I don't know if that means 20% or 50%, but the amount Owen used is substantial) literally guarantees a mismatch, because the frequency relationships are mangled.
Compression is a volume relationship technique (across the sample), and should have no effect on the frequency relationships.
I think the technology admits matching compressed with uncompressed voice, but you are right in that those comparisons are done with normal voices, speaking normal words.

Why is Owen Using It (none / 0) (#25)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:19:42 PM EST

I didn't answer that part of your question.

I gather, from listening to Owen's testimony, that he had to do something to "have a chance" to match the radically different waveform of normal speaking compared with the screams. The pitch was much higher in the scream, so a direct overlay, normal voice to scream, would be a clear mismatch - nothing matches. So, he sped up the normal voice until the primary frequency of the pitch shifted sample matched the primary frequency of the scream, then had the software perform the comparison of the frequency spectra.


and ? (none / 0) (#28)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:29:46 PM EST

and if we apply this same pitch-shift to the likely speech of Trayvon Martin and compare that to the screams, what result do we have?


: Pitch shift guarantees mismatch (none / 0) (#29)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:41:36 PM EST

Pitch shift mangles the original in a way that renders it useless for comparison purposes.
If you were trying to figure out if you had a conventional mattress or a foam one, putting either one under a steam roller (pitch shift it), and comparing that with an "unknown" mattress (that isn't under a steam roller) would always be a mismatch.

No television of proceedings, right? (none / 0) (#5)
by magster on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:56:45 AM EST

Wouldn't mind having it on in the background if it is televised.

I always thought it was ironic that we have a (none / 0) (#8)
by leftwig on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 02:12:53 PM EST

system that claims to seek truth and justice through an impartial process, but it begins with both sides trying to seat a jury that is biased, or at least predisposed to supporting their side.

Watching/reading about the jury selection process, I can't help but think professional jury panels made up of 3-5 jurists would be a better system.

Predisposed, (none / 0) (#9)
by jbindc on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 02:15:47 PM EST

or those who have an open mind - to both sides?

Just because someone is arrested does not mean they are guilty and, simultaneously, just because a defendant is presumed innocent at the beginning, does not mean that a jury should ignore evidence.

Jurors should be open to listening to the evidence and making a decision based on the law.


Absolutely jurors should have an open mind (none / 0) (#39)
by leftwig on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:13:00 PM EST

My comment was that the process doesn't ensure that. The lawyers try to seat jurors who are likely to be sympathetic to their side, not necessarily open minded. The defense is more likely than the prosecution to be looking for open minded, clear thinking jurists in this case.


: I don't agree with your last statement (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 08:04:45 AM EST

Yes Indeed (none / 0) (#33)
by RickyJim on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:04:54 PM EST

The US is out in left field when compared to the rest of the world. It is the only country on the planet where there is such an occupation as "jury consultant", the only country on the planet where judges and prosecutors are elected (OK some tiny exception for lay judges in Switzerland and Supreme court judges in Japan), one of the few countries which doesn't have an occupation "investigative judge", that is the guy or gal who runs the police investigation, decides if there should be an indictment and compiles the evidence dossier that is given to both sides. However trials in most other countries are not as entertaining as in the US because here the lawyers fight it out and the judge just acts as a referee.


Has there been any ruling... (none / 0) (#12)
by bmaz on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:44:04 PM EST

...on the admission of "expert" testimony on the scream voice sample yet? If they all ow that bunk in, I quit. It is insane. Had a case with "bite mark" evidence here once where absolute junk experts were allowed to ramble wild. Defendant later exonerated and the beneficiary of millions of dollars for having been victim to crap "scientific evidence" from a beyond craven prosecution. This junk needs to stop.

Still waiting on a defense witness (none / 0) (#14)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:29:41 PM EST

The court hasn't heard from all the defense witnesses, so there is no ruling. One more witness, probably 4 hours of examination, cross exam. Then argument, then who knows if she'll rule from the bench or retire and compose an opinion.

I think she'll allow the state experts. The defense has outstanding rebuttal if the state wants to put the state experts on the stand, and Nelson avoids the possibility of interlocutory appeal, and the wrath of the prosecutor, if she denies the defense motion to exclude state's experts. It's trivially easy to weasel word an opinion and allow all but the most obvious of frauds (astrology, tarot, phrenology, etc.) to pass either the Frye or Daubert test.


: Yes, but... (none / 0) (#40)
by bmaz on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:21:28 PM EST

...I delve back to the "bite mark" junk science. What a nightmare. Given a criminal burden of proof I absolutely hate junk science being "left up to the jury for weight". Bleech.

zimmerman (none / 0) (#18)
by morphic on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:55:24 PM EST

From his responses, it's obvious Reich is rather deaf. For how long, I don't know, but you'd think any juror would notice. His methodology is to keep listening to a tape, in a self imposed brain washing torture, until some truth eventual emerges from sounds obscure to those with normal hearing.


I think he wears a hearing aid (none / 0) (#26)
by cboldt on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:23:54 PM EST

I think he said he wears a hearing aid. I don't mean to imply that his hearing aid is in use when he listens to sounds under headphones, but his auditory sensitivity isn't what it used to be.

I wonder if he has a set of period hearing test results as evidence of his hearing ability. I would, if I was making my business that of making auditory judgments using my own sensory abilities. It's like calibrating the "whatever" instrument so you know it's working.


: What He Does is Not Science (none / 0) (#36)
by RickyJim on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:15:10 PM EST

Has he proven that other people can hear the same things if they also spend 700 hours listening over and over? Without such verification what Reich does is mysticism. I think Nelson will really open herself to ridicule if she lets him testify and I find it hard to believe she doesn't care.

So When Will an Agency Be Set Up (none / 0) (#35)
by RickyJim on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:09:26 PM EST

to give national certification for being an expert in a certain field? I mean a government agency, not a diploma mill where you can get your certificate online by passing multiple choice tests.


Or did they not bother asking permission? (none / 0) (#17)
by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:50:45 PM EST

Who let the Martin family and their attorney use a courtroom to promote their religious views, or to shoot a video, or to issue any kind of a statement?

the court assigned a courtroom (none / 0) (#21)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:57:34 PM EST

to the media to use for interviews.


Robtert Zimmerman also gave an interview (none / 0) (#22)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:58:12 PM EST

from the media courtroom.


: That's cool, then (none / 0) (#27)
by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:29:37 PM EST

Thanks, Jeralyn.

The same (none / 0) (#45)
by gbrbsb on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:14:53 PM EST

person/official/body that allowed RZ to do exactly the same, and much of his interview was in true Castilian Spanish.


Tom Owen's Software (none / 0) (#30)
by Mr Mark Martinson on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:14:56 PM EST

It sounds to me that George Zimmerman has a moderately higher pitched voice than the average male his age.

Take 100 such males and run them through Owen's software and compare them to the voice screaming on the 911 call. What will the results be?

The issue is not the scientific basis for voice identification technology; it's a question of comparing a life or death scream w/normal speech. Has anyone refuted Dr. French's claim that this can't be done?

-Mark Martinson

: zimmerman (none / 0) (#34)
by morphic on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:07:50 PM EST

The voice was recorded off a cellphone, traveling inside, from the outside.

Question (none / 0) (#31)
by Teresa on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:51:12 PM EST

I obviously haven't kept up well due to my mom having an eventually fatal fall with a massive brain bleed, so I watched pretty much no news last year. I guess I can be a juror from TN since I know very little what's going on. I visited the forum but was kind of overwhelmed at the amount of info there.

I was reading about six jurors. This article says that unless it's a capital case, six jurors can be used in Florida. Is that normally done? As a defentant, I'd kind of like my chances better with twelve. This doesn't mean I'm pro either side but that's news to me re: six jurors.

Also, the same article says they won't be sequestered. It's dated today, but is their information outdated? It's from CFN, a FL news station.

Will the jury be sequestered?

During a hearing Tuesday, May 28, Judge Nelson ruled that the jury will not be sequestered, but they will only be identified by their numbers during trial. The media has agreed not to take video or photographs of the jury.

Sorry for asking questions that have probably been answered many times. If I need to ask in the forum instead, just let me know.

(Hi Oculus & Jeralyn!)

Defendant I mean. (none / 0) (#32)
by Teresa on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:52:46 PM EST

Six Jurors (none / 0) (#37)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:17:49 PM EST

I researched this in the early days. Six jurors for non-capital criminal cases is how they do it in Florida. It seems to be mandatory.

Selection of jurors, and some other matters concerning juries, are covered in Chapter IX of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Number of jurors is Rule 3.270.


: Mandatory (none / 0) (#43)
by Teresa on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:59:28 PM EST

Wow, I don't think I like that. Florida just has to be different, don't they?
Thank you for the link!

Hi Theresa (none / 0) (#38)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:19:56 PM EST

Welcome back. The judge said the jury would not be sequestered during jury selection. They may be during trial, but I haven't seen an order.

It's policy in Florida (or at least some counties) that there are only 6 jurors in non capital cases. I wouldn't like it either -- less chances for a holdout.

I just set up new forums for the trial so there's not so much information to follow. The pre-trial forums are pretty exhaustive, as the commenters there follow every nuance of the case and do their own factual sleuthing and legal research. But they are pretty well organized if you are looking for something specific.


: Six Jurors Is Statutory (none / 0) (#41)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:37:35 PM EST

Rule 3.270, previously cited, itself cites Fla. Stat. § 913.10.

Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.

: Thank you, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#42)
by Teresa on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:57:47 PM EST

I saw a reporter tonight say that they were questioned about how they would feel about being sequestered, so it sounds like it's an option for trial. And I agree, as a non-lawyer, I can see why defense lawyers would hate a six juror system. I've never heard of that until today.
That forum has to be the most informative place on this case anywhere! Thank you for letting me know there's a new area for the trial.

Why didn't all jurors report on Monday? (none / 0) (#46)
by donatella on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:41:41 PM EST

As the week goes on the odds that a potential juror has not seen at least part of what is transpiring is very low. All of the jury notices were dated Monday June 10 but when the confirmation number was called over the weekend they were instructed to call in daily until they were needed. Couldn't the judge have brought in all 500 on Monday (maybe to the civic center if the courthouse couldn't handle it), given them the questionnaires and an admonition with regard to discussing the case or watching the media until they were released.
It seems that there are 2 groups- those that don't want to be on this jury and those that do. Don't know what that says about the media and our judicial system.

No one is going to (none / 0) (#47)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:44:47 PM EST

get through the voir dire of 500 potential jurors - even if it's just going through their questionnaires. They would just have to keep bringing people back until they sat a jury. Besides being ineffecient (and I'm betting there's no room), would YOU want to be in a jury pool that has to miss work and keep coming back to the courthouse IN CASE you called up for regular voir dire?

Don't diminish the room aspect. Don't forget, there are only so many court personnel to handle these people, and there IS other business going on in other courts - especially OTHER trials.


I see your point but why call 500 jurors for Mon? (none / 0) (#48)
by donatella on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:58:26 PM EST

Could they have staggered the pool to report throughout the week?As it stands now, the pool has to call in everyday after 6 to get instructions for the next day. Do you schedule meetings, etc when you might have to be at the courthouse at 8:00 the next morning?
Also, those who have not reported are not under any restrictions as far as discussing the case or following it in the media. It would be hard to miss as almost every public place has at least one TV these days.


That's how (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by jbindc on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 06:28:10 AM EST

Many courts do their jury system - not just in this high profile case. You have to call in every day for a week to see if you need to report the next day. In other places, you just have to go sit for a day, or a week, in a large room and then you MIGHT be called up to a court, and then you MIGHT be selected for a jury. Wouldn't you rather sit at home (or go about your life) instead of sitting in a large room in the courthouse?

This isn't unusual, except in the large size of the jury pool.


: Well said (none / 0) (#50)
by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:01:11 AM EST

and exactly how it is done. I had a week of jury duty, and called at 7:00pm the night before all 5 days and fulfilled my week of jury duty without ever being asked to come to the courthouse.