You know, for purposes of perfecting
the record and yes you have Mr.
Williams, we would take exception
to the 4th rule in that regard.
Our argument essentially would be
that the same arguments in regards
to the algorithm 702 that we
proffered previously would apply to
whether he's being qualified as a
forensic analyst or a video enhancer.
And we believe that these statements
and the evidence has been put forth
so forth so far do not meet the
requirements of Darwin or 702 even
under this newly proper expertise.
Well, I I'll and I'll and I'll I'll I'll of
course professionally disagree with you.
I think that from the courts were
listening to him, his testimony,
Mr Penney's testimony, he.
He's been doing this for 30 years.
There is a methodology that he is he follows
the four part division that certainly,
certainly he followed that
in this particular case.
I think that would be helpful to
the jury in this particular matter.
So he's not he you know it's different
than being a forensic because
then so forensic I should say.
Video analysis.
So I'll I'll respectfully overrule your note.
Your objection,
for the record.
Alright, I'll be
happy Mr Stillwell, who
is directly affected by this evidence as
well on his joined in Mr Adams argument
and adopt all of his arguments. Yes. OK,
if you're not. Mr Harvey,
did you all favor yesterday?
OK. Unless you are,
unless there's something else,
then I'm going to assume that
everybody's going to have the same
same objection or same basis.
OK, so and continue objection that yes,
yes, Miss Sharp.
Can I just add something? Sure.
On behalf of Mr Meyer, yes.
Understand the course ruling,
but it's still his methodology
has not been tested.
And that's the additional thing
that I would add has been tested,
has been peer reviewed,
hasn't been tested.
We have no idea whether or not his
methodology the way that he does it.
Have you. Did you take a look at Kumu Tire,
526 US 1371999? OK and it's that allows
the court to to look at other factors
for it non scientific and this is
non scientific it's more so it's more
so unlike not like chemistry biology
physics that kind of thing they that
can be tested that can be that that
there's either a right or wrong answer.
So I'm required under Kumu to go
ahead and and and at least if I can
look at other the other factors.
In terms of terms of the subject
matter of his testimony and expertise.
Proud of. I mean, reliability.
I I'll, I'll, I'll,
I'll note your objection for the record.
OK, alright.
But, your honor, Kumho
Tire doesn't apply here.
This is scientific analysis that he's doing.
I don't understand what can be more
scientific than using Fourier transforms.
Discrete cosine transforms?
You're taking it into a different domain.
No, you are, you are because you're
adding things that haven't been testified
to. He testified that he
doesn't know. OK. And that
goes to weight and sufficiency.
Well, in terms of in terms it
can go to weight sufficiency,
I have a gatekeeping function,
but beside that you're welcome
on cross to to take him to
task on any of that.
But you're gatekeeping function
ensures that methodology methods,
analysis that doesn't follow
reliable established standards
doesn't get in front of the jury.
And this gentleman,
while he's been doing it for a long time,
it's not following the methodology.
That's established in this industry.
He's using his own method.
If the Dahmer factors
I'm quoting out Akuma Dover
facts are not consulted,
definite checklists or test,
and a gatekeeping inquiry must
be tied to particular facts.
So particular facts are enhances.
He bowls this thing up into
4 divides into four parts and
and he can testify about that.
You're welcome to go ahead,
and I've been doing it for 30 years,
and and certainly the types of
videography has changed over
that particular period of time.
And that's what he's going
to testify to you all.
Certainly there are issues of weight
and credibility that I'm sure you'll,
I'm sure that you'll go ahead
and and examine him on.
Anything else?
No, your Honor, thank you. OK.
Thank you very much, Sir. All right,
Mr. Johnson, anything else?
With regards to the determination
that this is such a scientific
matter that an assistant judge
inspected on the assistance,
he assessed that he uses
nothing more than former shop,
which is the product that is sold to the
common problem that can be used by anybody.
So understanding Photoshop does not
need to be bolstered by his designation
as that experience participation and
also said he been doing this 30 years
should not carry weight given the fact
that he's using technology that has not
even existed for nearly 10 to 15 years.
Which you testified that he only
uses maybe twice a month, basically.
Thanks.
I know it's there
and he's been qualified 50
times in or actually in DeKalb,
Fulton, Cobb and Gwinnett.
So and and Fulton. So.
All right. Thank you, Mr.
Johnson. Thank you. Alright,
Missouri anything Sir. Yeah,
you should check here man.
Just we respectfully disagree on our end.
Just saying that as he testified,
any layperson could do this.
We do have an objection as to
him being labeled an expert,
it will be again bolstering.
They can just present us a
witness as the technician that
enhance the video and explain to
the jury what he actually did.
Not that he has an expertise in
that and not that it's something any
different than their investigator
or even an intern could have done.
So just just wanted to say that,
you know that any layperson could do what.
He's doing,
and that is what distinguishes an expert.
Thank you.
Miss Rosenwasser, one more thing.
What about the what about
the issue of somebody?
I mean, Photoshop is.
Is Photoshop in this particular case,
didn't he? Yeah, right. 2nd.
Mr. Kennedy, did you use what program,
or or? Did you use to enhance
the video in this case?
Workshop here. Alright,
so what's to say that you know,
as Mr Chris mentioned already about?
Anybody else being able to use Photoshop?
Your Honor, my understanding
from I don't need to designate
him as an expert from testify.
I'm absolutely
we when we went to qualify and we wanted
to do this and out of essentially
an abundance of caution to ensure
that maybe the jury would want to
know how that these were enhanced.
And we thought that he would be
able to explain that based on his
years of testimony and experience.
So my understanding is that
based on his experience,
my understanding to the answer to
the question where he mentioned
that anyone could do this,
it was not only that anyone could
use Photoshop but anyone who
knows how to use Photoshop and.
Learns over a period of years
how to enhance better on it.
But should the court wish to find
he is only admissible as a witness,
will put in the videos through him
as a lay witness. That's fine too.
Chris one.
We just want to get the leaders
in don't care they're coming.
Mr. Chairman, as you convinced me,
I do believe that given the fact that
this is a readily available program,
Photoshop, and that people,
anybody would with a varying level
of skill and practice can do that,
I won't qualify him as an expert.
I'm just going to let him testify as a
layperson for the above mentioned reasons,
OK? All right. Thank you. Honor that.
We'll call him as a lay witness.
That's fine. Alright, Mr Bennett, I'm gonna,
I'm gonna go ahead and excuse you.
The witness appreciate your patience with us.
And the state will call you
or that's will call you.
You might get a call from Mr.
Mr Munez over here to interpret,
but that's a separate issue,
OK and make sure you patient alright so
and but please don't discuss your testimony
except the attorneys in this case.
OK. Alright.
Thank you, Sir.