JM argues 10 people would see 10 different things . . . no way to verify what someone sees is correct . . . . no way to test rate of error. . . whether someone sees a gopher or a dog . . .what are the standards or controls he uses . . where we could look @ those and replicate it . .. like a blood test where it can be verified.
this is a subjective test . . . no testimony this approach has been accepted in scientific community . . .voodoo . . .
when we put it up . .. I thought it was a dog 2 ears, eyes, nose and a stick (in its mouth)
if the jury . . . .
this winess talking about daubert but he is not a lawyer and he doesn't know what he is talking about
Nurmi - in this trial we have seen hundreds of texts . . . JM is the same person who told us that texts didn't exist . . . says he sees a dog so everyone should see it.
this is science- JM takes a limited view of science . . . . misguided and altered view of what is now science or not science . . . this evidence is prohibitive for the State's position . . .
Neumeister testified he used commonly used clear id software . . . JM evaded that reality. no dispute challenging what he did . . there was personal character assassination . . .
Mr. Martinez is afraid of the bite in this dog I guess
2 alternatives
court can preclude this picture without this trace and have the jurors go to his lab . . . validity and see this outline . . . Nurmi has seen it - been to the lab - this is merely a trace . . .scientific results enlargement of the video. . . . outline is merely something they cannot see because limits of this courtroom.
JA is entitled full defense. . . .
either bring jury up to his lab or allow all 4 photos in
Judge Mr. Nurmi . . .
under rule #702 A - knowledge of expert - will help trier of evidence - fact?
Nurmi - turn court back to 159 - series of photos - JA was taking a picture of TA exactly how she said she did.
Mr. Neumeister work shows . . her hands both on the camera and she is few feet away . . . no knife in her hands - no just a camera - just a few feet away - helps jury understand testimony . . . attacked JA's credibility . .. assists the trier of fact
object JM - don't see camera, knife, I saw dog - don't know german shepard or Chihuahua . . .
I will hear comments .. (judge)
for the record Nurmi was just handed this morning state's motion (fo mistrial)Mr. Martinez intimidate witnesses. . .
interview JM conducted with Mr. Samuels . . .
doesn't have anything to do with juror saw me take photo or signing auto - (JM)
first motion or 2nd - we can do.
Judge Mr. Nurmi -
ineffect. assistance of counsel - JM engaged in behavior imitated by those following trial - to harass and intimidate witness . . . . this is relevant to JM intimidate Mr.Samuels just as he did with ALV in chambers.
JM wants info from Ms. Wong before moving foreward
Nurmi - motion for mistrial - prosecutorial misconduct is cumulative issues . . . State mentions in their motion - numerous motions for mistrial - he has thrown stuff, yelled @ witnesses, he chose to walk outside - sign autographs and pose for pictures. . . this was not viewed by any other juror but the previous conduct was.
he is standing out there having a fan club - put aside the unprofessionalism of that - this sort of behavior is exciting a mistrial in this case . . . he is the great one . . . it is infusing trial . . .. every other action including avows seeing dogs and text messages don't exist -one big continuum throughout this trial - continued .
JM says isolated incident - reporter ask he walk outside an pose for pictures . . . somehow the defense wants to connect that with what the social media does - doesn't show a connected or nexus to the prosecutor - something unscripted and nothing affected the jurors . ..
talked to jurors - but defense ontinues to grandstand . . . Ms. Wong saw nothing . . even if she had the jurors saw nothing - we waste court time . . . .wasting time is an ethical issue . . .how this started they indicated that Jurors saw Mr. Martinez . . . wasting everyone time is problematic . . . except fordefense counsel to see if they can add a few more pennies . . . .
objection to comments made
I am sorry for
court considered #1 & 2 . . Ms. Wong and Cesares . . . juror question . . .
law provides to prove pros. misconduct must show actions were improper
reasonable likelihood deny defendant fair trial
there is no proof jury saw in front of court house
Denied