the call, it s the boy. but at this point, no one knows the name george zimmerman. no one knows the name trayvon martin, but yet she can determine in her own thought who the boy is. i need you to speak to me as a lawyer and what you would do with that information. i think this is some of the most important evidence in the whole case, because if it is a boy or a child screaming, that she hears, and then later on in other taped encounters, the jury s going to go against zimmerman. he s shooting somebody on the ground screaming for help. but can you determine it s a young person? can you identify a scream? ironically, they had a hearing on this with the top experts in the country, and the judge said, you know something, scientifically, you can t determine whose voice it is in this tape. but the jury will be allowed to apply layperson s opinion testimony to make that determination. and understandably, this
wow. blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and in any event failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents factual assertions blankenhorn s book the future of marriage lists numerous consequences of permitting same-sex couples to mayor rich. the list of consequences arose from a group thought experiment in which an idea was written down if someone suggested it. none of blankenthorn s opinions is reliable. ouch. ouch. ouch. back in may new york times columnist frank rich tied the same mr. blankenhorn to this star of the anti-gay movement who you may recognize, george riekers. his own paid testimony against gay families in arkansas and florida was so bad that judges in those states made special notice of how bad he was as a
one amazing thing about the gay marriage ban overturned in california today was something i had known about the trial while it was happening. but i didn t really appreciate the importance of it until i read the ruling that came out this afternoon. the anti-gay marriage people, the people defending the gay marriage ban in court, only called two experts in their whole case. they only called two witnesses. the first one was this guy, david blankenhorn. he is president of the institute for american values. now judge walker spent the better part of ten pages of his ruling just talking smack about david blankenhorn. think i m kidding? the court now determine that s mr. blankenhorn s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.
david blankenhorn. think i m kidding? consider this. quote, the court now determines that mr. blankenhorn s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight. wow. quote, blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony, and in any event failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents factual assertions. ow, ow. here s another. blankenhorn s book, the future of marriage, lists numerous consequences of permitting same-sex couples to marry. mr. blankenhorn explained that the list of consequences arose from a group thought experiment in which an idea was written down if someone suggested it. quote, none of blankenhorn s opinions is reliable. ow, ow, ow, ow, ow. back in may, new york times columnist frank rich tied the same mr. blankenhorn to this