Was that states in the article? (I didn't click the link) One might think that,in the interest of "fairness" that if the judge bars one side from calling a certain type of "expert" the same ban would apply to the other side as well.Unless,perhaps,the judge doubted the expertise of a *particular individual*.They are still available to the defense.
One might think that research has been done at various universities,perhaps even prestigious ones (MIT,Harvard Medical School,etc) on the human voice and voice recognition that could be applied to a matter like this.If my hunch is correct the only thing that might call the "science" into question is if respected researchers have reached substantially different conclusions in their work.I don’t see a great use for them, off the top of my head, but they can be called.
Having listened to a good deal of the expert testimony in the pretrial hearing, I would characterize my own life/work experience as making me at least as knowledgeable as the state’s “experts,” though not nearly as well credentialed as the defense experts - whose testimony makes perfect sense to me, whereas the state’s witnesses were embarrassing, just as the defense witnesses said or strongly implied.
Having read the judge’s finding, linked as follows,The ORDER EXCLUDING THE OPINION TESTIMONY OF MR. OWEN AND DR. REICHI am very pleased by it. The judge dismisses the state’s “experts,” without saying or implying (IMHO) anything negative about those put forward by the defense. The ruling is a slam dunk for the defense. However, the defense experts said that they nor anyone else can tell who was screaming by analyzing the 911 tape. Thus, in the absence of any “expert” testimony from the state, the defense has nothing to gain by putting those witnesses on the stand before the jury - they have achieved the defense’s fondest hopes by convincing the judge not to admit the prosecution’s “experts.” What little might be gained by putting them on would not be worth the money the defense would have to pay them.http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/order_excluding.pdf
32 posted on June 22, 2013 12:56:39 PM EDT by Uncle Chip
I would speculate that the defense lawyers would like to read, or ask the judge to read, enough of the judge’s opinion to help the jury understand the defense’s position - that Zimmerman’s post-fight explanation of the encounter to the police is the truth, and that Zimmerman’s voice is heard on the 911 call, notwithstanding that the defense does not claim that the identity of Zimmerman as the screamer can be confirmed or rebutted by reference to that 911 record.
The police released Zimmerman because, under the evidence they had gleaned, they were required to by the “stand your ground” law. But now that Zimmerman has been put on trial, “stand your ground” is irrelevant to the defense because Zimmerman claims that he had no duty to retreat because he had no ability to retreat. It is not necessary to the defense that all of the screams be from Zimmerman - it is only essential that the jury hold that Zimmerman have understood himself to be in deadly peril and unable to retreat at the moment he fired the shot. In that sense, it is an irrelevancy to have to defend against a prosecution claim that the data proves that Martin was the one screaming. That actually is a political rather than a a legal issue - but, unfortunately, that political issue can have real consequences both in the jury and in the general public.
It seems likely that the prosecution will give Trayvon’s parents the opportunity to claim that they recognize the screams as Trayvon’s voice, but Mr. Martin claimed that that voice was not Trayvon’s, before he realized there was a business opportunity in claiming that it was. Given the defense contention that it is not possible to reliably identify the screamer from analysis of the recorded sound, It’s not clear to me that the defense has anything to gain by putting Zimmerman’s parents on the stand to play “he said, she said” in rebuttal.
The ruling was not that "no experts can testify." The ruling (at the risk of over-simplifying) was that the prosecution's proposed witnesses are not actually experts.
As for the defense experts on this topic, they have nothing of value to offer in testimony, so they won't testify. Their testimony was used to convince the court that the prosecution was trying to inject quackery into evidence. Mission accomplished.