MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
There's a pre-hearing this morning (on now) where both sides are arguing whether or not the fact that Zimmerman may have known about the Stand Your Ground Law should be admissible in court.
Seems that two years ago, in G's Criminal Justice class, SYG was covered in a lecture.
The judge refuses to hear Defense arguments that if GZ's prior actions (attending the class...or not, since no one can testify that he was in class that day) are going to be admissible, then Martin's should be as well. The judge got really pissed with THAT argument and disallowed even the argument.
Do you think this information should be allowed in court? Is it right that knowing the law should be held against a person?
(I would have put this under Grim's today's testimony thread, but I decided it would take it off in other directions...and it's not testimony.)
Seems that two years ago, in G's Criminal Justice class, SYG was covered in a lecture.
The judge refuses to hear Defense arguments that if GZ's prior actions (attending the class...or not, since no one can testify that he was in class that day) are going to be admissible, then Martin's should be as well. The judge got really pissed with THAT argument and disallowed even the argument.
Do you think this information should be allowed in court? Is it right that knowing the law should be held against a person?
(I would have put this under Grim's today's testimony thread, but I decided it would take it off in other directions...and it's not testimony.)