Is this relevant? (1 Viewer)

[MaggieD]

The evidence that George Zimmerman's attorneys have uncovered on Trayvon Martin's cellphone paints a troubling picture of the Miami Gardens teenager: He sent text messages about being a fighter, smoking marijuana and being ordered to move out of his home by his mother. And photos from that phone offer more of the same: healthy green plants — what appear to be marijuana — growing in pots and a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun...

[From text messages]On Nov. 22, 2011, three months before the shooting, Trayvon wrote about being involved in a fight. His unnamed opponent, he wrote, "got mo hits cause in da 1 round he had me on da ground an I couldn't do ntn..."

The defense evidence packet also includes other information from Trayvon's school records, among them five videos from a Miami-Dade schools police investigation that turned up several pieces of women's jewelry in Trayvon's backpack and a screwdriver, what authorities there described as a burglary tool.

Why isn't this able to be introduced? (If I understand correctly, the judge refused to allow any of it.)

 

[Fisher]

Why isn't this able to be introduced? (If I understand correctly, the judge refused to allow any of it.)

Because it prejudices the jury. I guess the easiest way to say it is that a slut can be a victim of a rape. That she sleeps around does not mean that someone can rape her at will so we protect the victim from having her sluttiness used against her. In this case, even a thug can be a victim of a crime. That he was a thug is irrelevant to the facts of what happened that particular night.

 

[Lutherf]

Prosecution brought up the school stuff for GZ because of what Zimmerman testified to in the Hannity interview (He hadn't head of SYG). In essence this testimony is an impeachment of the statement Zimmerman made and does two things:
1. It shows that Zimmerman gave inconsistent testimony on this particular matter
2. It puts the defense in a position of having to decide if they want Zimmerman to take the stand to counter any of this and I suspect that is the State's primary goal here

The interesting part of this is that West is now using this as an opportunity to talk about self defense outside of any jury instructions which could be a huge benefit for the defense.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Why isn't this able to be introduced? (If I understand correctly, the judge refused to allow any of it.)

Irrelevant. It only matters after the first strike. Everything before that, is nothing.

 

[MaggieD]

Irrelevant. It only matters after the first strike. Everything before that, is nothing.

Then why are they talking about George Zimmerman's law enforcement classes, huh-huh-huh????

 

[CRUE CAB]

Then why are they talking about George Zimmerman's law enforcement classes, huh-huh-huh????

To show what he may or may not have known what the laws were as far as stand your ground or use of deadly force.

 

[Andalublue]

Then why are they talking about George Zimmerman's law enforcement classes, huh-huh-huh????

Could it be because TM isn't the one on trial...or is he? Fisher's point makes a lot of sense.

 

[Fisher]

Why isn't this able to be introduced? (If I understand correctly, the judge refused to allow any of it.)

Because it prejudices the jury. I guess the easiest way to say it is that a slut can be a victim of a rape. That she sleeps around does not mean that someone can rape her at will so we protect the victim from having her sluttiness used against her. In this case, even a thug can be a victim of a crime. That he was a thug is irrelevant to the facts of what happened that particular night.

Then why are they talking about George Zimmerman's law enforcement classes, huh-huh-huh????

Because with self defense, it is a reasonable person under those circumstances test and the circumstances are someone who has a gun and who has been trained somewhat. There is also a creditability issue as Zimmerman apparently indicated to someone he didn't know SYG. IDK but they are stretching I think. As for the other stuff, know that there are not many absolutes. The stuff that you mentioned in the OP could still come in but it is conditioned on other things happening at which point the court will reconsider its limiting order. There are very few things that cannot be brought in under any circumstances and that is usually done by statute--like my state law prohibits in civil cases police accident reports being introduced and if you mention insurance in a civil trial in front of a jury for damages then there is an absolute right to a mistrial.

 

[MaggieD]

Could it be because TM isn't the one on trial...or is he? Fisher's point makes a lot of sense.

Well, let's exaggerate it and see if you think it matters:

Trayvon Martin is an MMA expert. He's a street fighter with videos on his phone of him beating someone's head on the concrete. He fights every Friday night. Is that relevant? Yes, would be the answer. So where's the line? That's all I'm saying.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Why isn't this able to be introduced? (If I understand correctly, the judge refused to allow any of it.)

Not that they're necessarily equivalent, but ask yourself why the reputation and past history of a woman is not relevant in the prosecution of a rape case.

Rightly or wrongly, the victim is never on trial.

If I'm not mistaken, if Zimmerman had been involved in a similar self-defense shooting and had killed someone but had been acquitted, that act would not have been admissible as well.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Zimmerman’s Fate and Looming Race Riots​

By Arnold Ahlert
July 3, 2013


The murder case against George Zimmerman is rapidly unraveling, due in large part to the compelling testimony of key witnesses. Ordinarily, there is nothing unusual about compelling testimony changing the course of a trial, but in this case it is witnesses presented by the prosecution that are bolstering the case for the defendant. Thus, with each passing day it is becoming more apparent that the real reason for bringing this case to trial was to assuage the media-driven concerns of the racial grievance industry, led by chief arsonists Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. Shamefully aiding and abetting them is the racially polarized Justice Department led by Attorney General Eric Holder.

[Excerpt]

Read more
Zimmerman’s Fate and Looming Race Riots | FrontPage Magazine

The question does come to the forefront. What will happen if Zimmerman is acquitted? Will there be riots? I remember what Sharpton did when a black child was hit by a Hassidic in Brooklyn years ago. That ended in a Jewish man being stabbed to death during the riots.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

To show what he may or may not have known what the laws were as far as stand your ground or use of deadly force.

If that is the case, the prosecution has opened the door to bring in Martin's prior acts and penchant for violence as well.

 

[CRUE CAB]

If that is the case, the prosecution has opened the door to bring in Martin's prior acts and penchant for violence as well.

I dont think you can equate class room learning with criminal activity.
Now, personally. I think all of Trayvons prior bad acts should be allowed as well as Zimmermans stupid moves prior to the shooting.