Say we should be heard in,
in terms of argument.
In terms of the. Yes, your honor.
Sure, I don't mind. No.
Here's your Honor, so I
want to be clear that what
we're basing our.
Our request to qualify this gentleman is
an expert is in the video enhancement,
the forensic video enhancement,
and we are just referring
to that older video.
The video is from 2015,
so I want to start with that.
Additionally, your Honor, although Mr
Adams correctly stated to Daubert,
obviously after Daubert we have Kumho
Tire and Kumho Tire explains how we can
qualify these experts when they don't have,
when it's not that scientific process,
when it's not that straightforward.
Here's the GBI witness,
here's what they do,
here's the scientific method.
Kumho Tire provides us an Ave to qualify
experts based on experience and this
is going to be something that the
car is probably going to hear a lot
about with our next witness as well.
But basically with experts like this,
the 11th Circuit,
I'd I'd like to point to the 11th
Circuit because in Rule seven O 2,
obviously this being a new rule
to criminal law in Georgia,
the legislature has directed us to
look to not only the 11th Circuit
but also to all federal courts.
But I'll start with the 11th
Circuit United States.
This is Augustine,
that's a 2011 case of the 11th
Circuit and I can provide all the
sites for the court if the court
is would like me to in that case,
the 11th Circuit said.
We note that federal rule of
Evidence 702 does not define an
expert in a narrow sense,
and in this case they were
qualifying a gang expert.
And the court said in light of the
substantial experience that agent
Young had with respect to St gangs,
we conclude that the District Court was
within its discretion in determining
that the agent was qualified to give.
Different testimony,
and this is something that happens a lot.
The 11th Circuit, and this is another
case out of the 11th Circuit,
a 2015 case called United
States versus Wilson,
United States versus Wilson.
The court held that because
of Daubert inquiry.
Must be tied to particular facts of the case,
the actual Daubert factors,
the ones that Mr Adams referenced.
Those Daubert factors may or may not
be pertinent in assessing reliability,
depending on the nature of the issue,
the experts particular expertise,
and the subject of the testimony.
As such,
a District Court maintains the same
kind of latitude in deciding how to
test and experts reliability and
to decide whether or when special
briefing or other proceedings
are needed to investigate.
Liability as it enjoys when
it decides whether or not an
expert's testimony is reliable.
But here's, here's here's the
balance you to focus on for me,
Miss Rosenwasser, that is.
You're asking me to court to
qualify him as a forensic video.
An expert name of forensic video analysis.
He's not certified by by a national
accrediting body which is something
that there is an there is an entity
or an or an organization that
does provide certification for for
that particular type of analysis.
He's also he has no annual training
and he's and he hasn't been his
competency hasn't been tested. So the.
The principles and methodology are
something that the Court has to count,
you know, has to really kind of look at.
In this case,
he's got 30 years of experience, yes.
But there are other things that
Daubert requires me to look at in
terms of a gatekeeping function.
You're asking me to qualify
him as a forensic examiner.
That's different.
If he had some of those other things,
other like certifications,
I wouldn't have so much of a problem
convinced me that that that otherwise,
because it looks like from looking at,
you know under Daubert and seven O 2.
Testimony is based on
sufficient facts or data.
The testimonies of product,
reliable principles and methods,
and the witnesses apply those
principles and methods reliably.
The facts of the case which have
or will be admitted in evidence
before the Trier of fact, so.
I have great discretion,
of course, and you know,
it's abuse of discretion for whatever
my ruling is. Absolutely. So. So.
So that's why I'm trying to ask you.
Given those those those issues of
not being certified by a national
body which there is one no annual
training and that's just three and
then there's no competency or testing.
So tell me why I should you know
I should I should I should look
to and I and I've read Kumo.
I know about Kumo,
Kumo goes hand in hand that it
for the non scientific folks it
it lets the courts kind of use
that gatekeeping function because.
Part of the gay gene function on my
siding Wilson versus Redmond Construction,
359 Georgia Appeals 814.
It's a 2021 case,
and I have to make this this gatekeeping
function requires me to act as a gatekeeper,
ensure speculative and unreliable opinions,
don't resent jury.
As a gatekeeper,
the court must do a preliminary
assessment of the reasoning and
methodology underlying these the
testimony of scientific valid
and whether that reasoning.
Methodology can properly be applied
to facts in this case and so the
the trouble I have is you want me to
qualify them as forensic so forensic
require indicates to the court that
there's some level of training,
expertise, certification.
Peer review or something to that effect.
So, your Honor,
I
I was wondering if I could amend
my Co counsel's request we if
we could qualify him only in
the expert in the very limited
field of video enhancement.
I would do that.
That's what we would like to have here.
I would do that.
Thank your Honor, Mr Adams and all.
I'm going to overrule your I mean I
mean I hear your I'll hear your issue,
but I believe he is qualified in that
too for Air video enhancement. But.
Forensic, I will not qualify him in that.