Afterload Reduction Therapy for Congestive Heart Failure

The most important recent advance in the medical management of patients with acute and chronic congestive heart failure has been the application of systemic vasodilator drugs to reduce ventricular afterload, thereby improving low cardiac output and decreasing increased venous pressure. Although such drugs have been employed for several years to treat essential hypertension, hypertensive heart failure, acute hypertensive crises, and angina pectoris, only in the past five years has their use become widely popular in the therapy of normotensive heart failure. While it can be reasoned that the vasodilator approach is a logical therapeutic extension of fundamental determinants regulating cardiac function known for many years, it is nevertheless intriguing that consideration has been delayed until the present time of such a useful concept as afterload reduction therapy in heart failure

Weighted LDA techniques for I-vector based speaker verification

This paper introduces the Weighted Linear Discriminant Analysis (WLDA) technique, based upon the weighted pairwise Fisher criterion, for the purposes of improving i-vector speaker verification in the presence of high intersession variability. By taking advantage of the speaker discriminative information that is available in the distances between pairs of speakers clustered in the development i-vector space, the WLDA technique is shown to provide an improvement in speaker verification performance over traditional Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) approaches. A similar approach is also taken to extend the recently developed Source Normalised LDA (SNLDA) into Weighted SNLDA (WSNLDA) which, similarly, shows an improvement in speaker verification performance in both matched and mismatched enrolment/verification conditions. Based upon the results presented within this paper using the NIST 2008 Speaker Recognition Evaluation dataset, we believe that both WLDA and WSNLDA are viable as replacement techniques to improve the performance of LDA and SNLDA-based i-vector speaker verification

Defendant\u27s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Robert Parks or Motion for a EVID. R. 104 Hearing to Determine Admissibility

The State argues for either excluding the alleged confession of Richard Eberling as testified to by Robert Parks or, in the alternative, for a hearing to determine admissibility, because the statements do not meet the hearsay exception under Ohio R. Evid. 804(B)(3) allowing for statements made against the interest of the declarant. The State argues that the second element, which requires the statement to be against the penal interests of the declarant, was not satisfied, because the declarant was already serving multiple consecutive sentences in prison, ensuring that he would die in jail before his scheduled release. The State further contends that the third element, which requires corroborating circumstances to indicate the statement\u27s trustworthiness, is not met, because the circumstances show that not only did Eberling previously fail to make any confession when given ample opportunity, but also there exists other evidence that Eberling was not telling the truth

Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to Trial Publicity

The State of Ohio moves to exclude from trial the expert testimony of Keith Sander, which concerns the publicity surrounding the 1954 trial. Sanders is the compiler of a report entitled The Cleveland Press Coverage of the Sheppard Murder Case in Relation to Sensational News Treatment. The State argues that this report is neither scientific nor technical and that the evidence will not help the trier of fact determine any of the facts at issue

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#31, 32, 38...)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude the Estate\u27s proposed exhibits 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 77, 78, 79, 80, 91, 92, 93, 112, and 113. The State asserts that these exhibits are not admissible as hearsay under Ohio Evid. R. 802. See order ruling on this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to the Value of DNA Evidence

The State of Ohio’s motion to exclude the testimony of expert Neil Miller. As an expert witness, Miller’s testimony would pertain to the value of DNA evidence. Miller has written a report entitled Convicted By Juries, Exonerated By Science. The State of Ohio argues that Miller’s expertise is limited to rape cases therefore his testimony is not relevant to this homicide case. The State of Ohio also argues that the evidence Miller can provide cannot be either scientific or technical. In addition, the State argues that the rules of evidence require that that the testimony be excluded because there is no fact at issue in the case for which Miller’s testimony will prove insightful for the jury

Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to the Value of DNA Evidence

The State of Ohio’s motion to exclude the testimony of expert Neil Miller. As an expert witness, Miller’s testimony would pertain to the value of DNA evidence. Miller has written a report entitled Convicted By Juries, Exonerated By Science. The State of Ohio argues that Miller’s expertise is limited to rape cases therefore his testimony is not relevant to this homicide case. The State of Ohio also argues that the evidence Miller can provide cannot be either scientific or technical. In addition, the State argues that the rules of evidence require that that the testimony be excluded because there is no fact at issue in the case for which Miller’s testimony will prove insightful for the jury

Motion in Limine to Exclude Specific Items of Physical Evidence

The State of Ohio moves to exclude the bloodstained wood chip and the bloodstain on the murder room wardrobe door, arguing that these pieces of physical evidence cannot be authenticated and should not be admitted during trial. Specifically, it argues that Cynthia Cooper will not be appearing at trial, leaving the trier of fact deprived of information concerning her involvement in the uncovering of the evidence. See order denying this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#26, 27, 110)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 26, 27, and 110 from trial, which are audiotapes and videotapes. The State argues that the tapes cannot be properly authenticated and that they are inadmissible hearsay. See order ruling on this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Emanuel Tanay

Emanuel Tanay was a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Wayne State University who offered an opinion regarding the crime scene investigation: he supported the theory that Richard Eberling was Marilyn\u27s killer. The State argues that the Professor’s methodology is not based on a reliable foundation and therefore does not meet the Daubert standard of admissibility. See order denying this motio