In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:




Z has already taken a voice stress test (similar to a lie detector?).
If he, for some reason, goes to a Grand Jury he should take the 5th.

I don't think VST's are yet admissible in court. I've read that sound
experts are examining the 911 recordings. My experience with "expert
witnesses" is that both sides will produce their own saying exactly opposite
things. Victory probably goes to the side whose witnesses induce the least
sleepiness or has the best hair. )-:
This is at least as jumbled as the law on polygraphs. Some states may
okay them if the results are stipulated to by both attorneys while
others don't let them come in at all, and some have system that allows
them in over the objection of one of the attorneys under very strict
provisions. There are even a couple cases in some states that seem to
indicate that any use of VST is grounds for a mistrial.



After just agreeing with HeyBub that one should never talk to a cop without
a lawyer present, I don't know how I would advise Zimmerman to behave in
front of a grand jury. Taking the 5th is too well-associated with mobsters
and I believe confers at least a tinge of guilt. There's a difference
between not talking to investigators and not talking to a grand jury that
has the power of indictment.

I'm not sure it makes all that much of a difference using the ham
sandwich test (g).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz