SANFORD, Fla. -

Good Morning! I hope you had a great Father's Day weekend. Quick update from Sanford - It will be an action-packed start to week 2 of jury selection in the George Zimmerman trial.

 

*Jury selection resumes at 9am 

*Then at 4pm is the highly-anticipated conclusion of the audio-expert hearing pertaining to a key piece of evidence: the 911 call where you can hear someone screaming in the background. The defense has one more California-based witness and expects the hearing to last three-four hours. It is hoped Judge Debra Nelson will then decide which expert testimony jurors will hear from during the trial. 

 

Additional Highlights and Recap of Week One in Numbers:

*Monday at 9am 19 potential jurors who have yet to be questioned individually will report to court.

 

*In addition to the audio-expert hearing, (called a Frye hearing), defense attorney Mark O'Mara also plans to ask Judge Debra Nelson to keep the identities of jurors a secret for 6 months after the trial.

 

*So far the Court Clerk's office confirms 28 potential jurors from 5 days of individual questioning on pre-trial publicity will be back on Tuesday with strict orders from the Judge *not* to discuss case. 

NOTE: Of the 28 potential jurors 23 are from Jury Selection Days 1-4 and 5 are from Day 5. 

*Once they reach a pool of 40 potential jurors who have "survived" individual questioning on pre-trial publicity, (gauging how much they already know about the case and whether that media exposure has formed strong opinions), Round 2 of jury selection will be begin. All 40 will be brought into the courtroom together and field broader questions from attorneys in the case.

 

Additional background information on Monday afternoon's audio-expert hearing - known as a "Frye" hearing.

 

A WHAT hearing? 

 

Here's what you need to know: A Frye hearing investigates the technique behind scientific evidence either party wants to introduce at trial. Is the methodology “generally accepted” by the scientific community, or is it “new and novel”?

 

In this case they are focused on a 911 call made by a woman the night of the shooting where you can hear screaming in the background.

 

Here is the important distinction: The Judge is not concerned with the conclusions by various audio experts, (i.e. it was George Zimmerman crying for help or it was Trayvon Martin crying for help), but rather the procedures and methodology they employed to reach their conclusion. Once again, is the scientific technique “generally accepted” or “new and novel”?

 

NOTE: An FBI speech scientist has already said their technology could not identify whose voice it was crying for help that rainy night.