Judge says no to Trayvon Martin 'shriek' analysis in Zimmerman case

In a major win for George Zimmerman’s defense, Judge Debra Nelson found on Saturday that disputed audio analysis of Trayvon Martin’s last moments is too tentative to allow into court.

A Florida jury won’t hear expert suggestions that Trayvon Martin gave a desperate shriek for help in the background of a 911 call before being killed by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, a judge ruled Saturday.

The ruling by Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson is a clear win for Mr. Zimmerman, whose guilt or non-guilt will be decided by a six-woman jury, with opening arguments scheduled for Monday. Zimmerman is the lone survivor of a Feb. 26, 2012 conflict inside a gated Florida neighborhood that pitted him against an unarmed 17-year-old returning to where he was staying with a bag of Skittles in his pocket.

The lack of an immediate arrest and the appearance of racial underpinnings to the tragedy brought Martin’s death to the nation, where President Obama commented at one point that, “If I had a son, he would’ve looked like Trayvon.” The case has since become a mirror in which America’s views on guns and race are reflected, and sometimes distorted.

The evidence, however, in the case is scant, which is one reason why both sides hyper-analyzed a rash of 911 calls to the Sanford Police Department. Using techniques dating back to World War II, two expert analysts – Alan Reich and Tom Owen – had ruled out Zimmerman as owning the voice that screams out “help” (or “stop,” as Reich interpreted it) before a gunshot rings.

“Was it George or not George, Trayvon or not Trayvon – we had very simple elimination decisions …,” Reich told the court last Friday. “The scream levels were almost entirely those of Trayvon Martin

If admissible in court, the conclusion that Martin emitted the panicked shriek would have heavily contradicted Zimmerman’s contention that he was in a defensive, not offensive, position when he fired. Self-defense protections only apply if jurors decide that a reasonable person would have acted similarly to the defendant.

"The evidence should be heard by the jury, and let them decide," Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei pleaded with Judge Nelson.

But ultimately Nelson ruled the testimony too subjective, likely taking into consideration how heavily a potentially flawed analysis could weight a verdict.

 Defense experts argued that the methods used by Messrs. Reich and Owen deviated from standard procedures. One of those experts, FBI analyst Hirotaka Nakasone, said using screams to peg a screamer is not possible, adding that he was “disturbed” by the state’s reports suggesting Martin was the one who cried out.

To make his point, defense attorney Donald West singled out Mr. Reich’s analysis that Zimmerman sounded like a “carnival barker” before Martin screamed “stop,” notions and words he said nobody else has concluded.

“His report should begin, ‘It was a dark and stormy night,’” West said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.