Toxicology excluded? (1 Viewer)

[Respecthelect]

When the Medical Examiner testified Trayvon's THC levels were too low to intoxicate, the judge ruled them out (May 2013). The M.E. changed his story yesterday to say Trayvon's levels were indeed intoxicating. When Zimmerman changes the tiniest part of his story (e.g. knowing "stand your ground") the prosecution calls him a liar. When their M.E. does it, he's a star witness.

The judge should have let Trayvon's illicit drug use in, since it was a key element of the encounter. Zimmerman initially followed Trayvon, because he said it looked like Trayvon was "on drugs." If it wasn't for Trayvon's illegal drug use, he'd still be alive. Like hitting a man when he's down, Trayvon was the sole cause of Trayvon's death.

The fact that Trayvon made a hobby of beating up homeless people by his own admission, could also have come in. But, there was an argument that the homeless beatings were unrelated crimes and there was no prior conviction. Although there should have been, since Trayvon posted his homeless beating videos on his facebook page. Trayvon's homeless beatings are public knowledge (look it up yourselves), but the media refuses to present these facts to the public. A public where almost half are happy to pick up pitchforks and falsely accuse an innocent Zimmerman. What country do we live in?

Big government needs to stop persecuting innocent citizens like Zimmerman. Zimmerman, a volunteer, doing watchman's work for free. The prosecution is a big government mob with pitchforks, nothing more.

 

[sharon]

When the Medical Examiner testified Trayvon's THC levels were too low to intoxicate, the judge ruled them out (May 2013). The M.E. changed his story yesterday to say Trayvon's levels were indeed intoxicating. When Zimmerman changes the tiniest part of his story (e.g. knowing "stand your ground") the prosecution calls him a liar. When their M.E. does it, he's a star witness.

The judge should have let Trayvon's illicit drug use in, since it was a key element of the encounter. Zimmerman initially followed Trayvon, because he said it looked like Trayvon was "on drugs." If it wasn't for Trayvon's illegal drug use, he'd still be alive. Like hitting a man when he's down, Trayvon was the sole cause of Trayvon's death.

The fact that Trayvon made a hobby of beating up homeless people by his own admission, could also have come in. But, there was an argument that the homeless beatings were unrelated crimes and there was no prior conviction. Although there should have been, since Trayvon posted his homeless beating videos on his facebook page. Trayvon's homeless beatings are public knowledge (look it up yourselves), but the media refuses to present these facts to the public. A public where almost half are happy to pick up pitchforks and falsely accuse an innocent Zimmerman. What country do we live in?

Big government needs to stop persecuting innocent citizens like Zimmerman. Zimmerman, a volunteer, doing watchman's work for free. The prosecution is a big government mob with pitchforks, nothing more.

Gad.. the prosecution couldn't vet the clip of two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.

Do you know anything at all about NW?

 

[spanky]

Why are we seeing so many CI people lately?

 

[buck]

I missed this portion of testimony, but a legal analysis on HLN indicated this is grounds for appeal and there is a good chance that the appeal would be granted.

According to her, someone being on drugs when it could be relevant to the encounter and an individuals mental state is almost universally allowed into the trial.

 

[Josie]

The prosecution started talking to Dr. Bao about toxicology on purpose. They knew there would be an objection and that would plant that seed in the minds of the jurors. Now they're thinking...wait...why can't we hear about Trayvon's toxicology results?

 

[MaggieD]

The prosecution started talking to Dr. Bao about toxicology on purpose. They knew there would be an objection and that would plant that seed in the minds of the jurors. Now they're thinking...wait...why can't we hear about Trayvon's toxicology results?

You mean the defense started talking about it, right? Or am I missing something?

 

[Josie]

You mean the defense started talking about it, right? Or am I missing something?

Oops. Yes, the defense.

 

[Excon]

They could not introduce it at this time.
O'Mara has indicated they will try to introduce it later.

start @ 11:50

 

[raindrop]

I missed this portion of testimony, but a legal analysis on HLN indicated this is grounds for appeal and there is a good chance that the appeal would be granted.

According to her, someone being on drugs when it could be relevant to the encounter and an individuals mental state is almost universally allowed into the trial.

Makes ton of sense to have that included. Judge allowed school records from 2 yrs ago for George, cause she thought they were relevant, BUT NOT any info on TM's drugs, which shows his state of mind....even after GZ stated that the guy looked and acted like he was on DRUGS! Wow,,,,,what is wrong with this picture Judge???

 

[Compatibilist]

I missed this portion of testimony, but a legal analysis on HLN indicated this is grounds for appeal and there is a good chance that the appeal would be granted.

According to her, someone being on drugs when it could be relevant to the encounter and an individuals mental state is almost universally allowed into the trial.

Makes ton of sense to have that included. Judge allowed school records from 2 yrs ago for George, cause she thought they were relevant, BUT NOT any info on TM's drugs, which shows his state of mind....even after GZ stated that the guy looked and acted like he was on DRUGS! Wow,,,,,what is wrong with this picture Judge???

Yes I saw from a couple of legal commentaries... and I believe it was Judge Alex Ferrer who said the rulings could even result in a reversal... which would set a convicted Zimmerman free on the spot.

I'm no attorney but was a insurance litigation examiner at one point in my career... and these unbalanced rulings are on the verge of being absurd. I have no doubt a conviction will not stand on appeal.

 

[Excon]

Makes ton of sense to have that included. Judge allowed school records from 2 yrs ago for George, cause she thought they were relevant, BUT NOT any info on TM's drugs, which shows his state of mind....even after GZ stated that the guy looked and acted like he was on DRUGS! Wow,,,,,what is wrong with this picture Judge???

It wasn't allowed in at this specific time, as it is basically irrelevant right now.
When it becomes relevant they will ask again. And then the Judge will be hard pressed not to allow it in.

 

[Oceandan]

It wasn't allowed in at this specific time, as it is basically irrelevant right now.
When it becomes relevant they will ask again. And then the Judge will be hard pressed not to allow it in.

You may be ab so lute ly correct here Excon. Here's the part I'm still confused about however. Once the Judge KNOWS, via Dr Bao's own testimony, now even HE feels the amount of THC in TM's blood *was* enough to impair his function, *and* she holds a Richardson's hearing on that VERY question, how can she preclude it from being admitted?

I'm not an attorney and I don't even WANT to play one on tv, I will admit maybe I'm just getting the cart before the horse. Maybe the Richardson's hearing was simply to settle the accusation the state knew Bao's opinion changed and instructed him NOT to discuss same.

When the defense brings up the toxicology report then she can again rule on whether it's relevant and thus can be presented. I thought the reason for precluding it in the first place was the state was saying the levels were not enough to impair.

I guess we'll find out. O'Mara didn't seem real concerned.

 

[Excon]

You may be ab so lute ly correct here Excon. Here's the part I'm still confused about however. Once the Judge KNOWS, via Dr Bao's own testimony, now even HE feels the amount of THC in TM's blood *was* enough to impair his function, *and* she holds a Richardson's hearing on that VERY question, how can she preclude it from being admitted?

I'm not an attorney and I don't even WANT to play one on tv, I will admit maybe I'm just getting the cart before the horse. Maybe the Richardson's hearing was simply to settle the accusation the state knew Bao's opinion changed and instructed him NOT to discuss same.

When the defense brings up the toxicology report then she can again rule on whether it's relevant and thus can be presented. I thought the reason for precluding it in the first place was the state was saying the levels were not enough to impair.

I guess we'll find out. O'Mara didn't seem real concerned.

The issues are different.
Yes, the Richardson hearing was to determine if the Prosecution withheld the knowledge that he had changed his mind. That is all.
So it doesn't come in at this time as it does not matter to the Dr.'s testimony.

It was precluded in the first place because, in general, ™'s prior bad acts are irrelevant unless it can be shown they were.

When it become relevant, that is when the Defense will again ask for it to be admitted.
That is when the Judge will be hard pressed to exclude them, and if she does, and he is convicted, becomes possible reversible error on appeal.

 

[CalGun]

An appeal should not be necessary. Its really sad this case wasn't dismissed Friday afternoon like it should have been.

I missed this portion of testimony, but a legal analysis on HLN indicated this is grounds for appeal and there is a good chance that the appeal would be granted.

According to her, someone being on drugs when it could be relevant to the encounter and an individuals mental state is almost universally allowed into the trial.

 

[j-mac]

The issues are different.
Yes, the Richardson hearing was to determine if the Prosecution withheld the knowledge that he had changed his mind. That is all.
So it doesn't come in at this time as it does not matter to the Dr.'s testimony.

It was precluded in the first place because, in general, ™'s prior bad acts are irrelevant unless it can be shown they were.

When it become relevant, that is when the Defense will again ask for it to be admitted.
That is when the Judge will be hard pressed to exclude them, and if she does, and he is convicted, becomes possible reversible error on appeal.

Maybe I watch too much Law and Order, but it seems to me a nation that proudly proclaims innocent until proven guilty, that the accused would have every chance to prove that their actions were justified.

For instance, going to character of the 'so called' victim here:

What kind of person was he?
Was he prone to violence?
Was he a drug user?
Did he glorify a culture of thuggery?
What were his grades in school?
Was he ever suspended?
What was on his social media?

All of these things are being withheld from the jury, and I think for a reason. This is a political case, and our prisons are littered with people that thanks to organizations like The innocence project are being proven to be there wrongly. Our system is one that has gone from seeking justice, to one that just wants convictions, and if politically expedient all the better.

 

[Excon]

Maybe I watch too much Law and Order, but it seems to me a nation that proudly proclaims innocent until proven guilty, that the accused would have every chance to prove that their actions were justified.

For instance, going to character of the 'so called' victim here:

What kind of person was he?
Was he prone to violence?
Was he a drug user?
Did he glorify a culture of thuggery?
What were his grades in school?
Was he ever suspended?
What was on his social media?

All of these things are being withheld from the jury, and I think for a reason. This is a political case, and our prisons are littered with people that thanks to organizations like The innocence project are being proven to be there wrongly. Our system is one that has gone from seeking justice, to one that just wants convictions, and if politically expedient all the better.

It has to be directly relevant.
Most of these things you mention, are not directly relevant.

 

[j-mac]

It has to be directly relevant.
Most of these things you mention, are not directly relevant.

Well, maybe not, but I just heard that the tox report is now allowed.

 

[Excon]

Well, maybe not, but I just heard that the tox report is now allowed.

Which is what I said.

It was precluded in the first place because, in general, ™'s prior bad acts are irrelevant unless it can be shown they were.

When it become relevant, that is when the Defense will again ask for it to be admitted.
That is when the Judge will be hard pressed to exclude them, and if she does, and he is convicted, becomes possible reversible error on appeal.

 

[j-mac]

Which is what I said.

Right you are sir.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The M.E. changed his story yesterday to say Trayvon's levels were indeed intoxicating.

Once the Judge KNOWS, via Dr Bao's own testimony, now even HE feels the amount of THC in TM's blood *was* enough to impair his function,

Actually the M.E. did NOT say that. The M.E. said that he now thinks that the level may have been high enough to have had an effect (which may or may not be the same thing as being intoxicated). Dr Bao gave the impression that the level was very near some borderline between being noticeable and not noticeable to the user.

So it's different on two counts from what you say he said.
just an fyi that may help you.

When Zimmerman changes the tiniest part of his story (e.g. knowing "stand your ground") the prosecution calls him a liar. When their M.E. does it, he's a star witness.

"First, let me explain what opinion is..."

They knew there would be an objection and that would plant that seed in the minds of the jurors. Now they're thinking...wait...why can't we hear about Trayvon's toxicology results?

IIRC, the jury was out of the room when that all came up.

fwiw, smoking pot isn't generally thought of as a gateway to violence...usually quite the opposite. I suspect that the pot info won't actually have that much impact in the minds of the jury--not the way that alcohol or amphetamines would. Both of those drugs are thought of as increasing incidents of violent behavior.

Ask a cop if he would rather arrest a drunk, someone on amphetamines, or someone who is high on pot. I expect the cop will have a clear preference for dealing with the stoner over the other two.

 

[Oceandan]

Actually the M.E. did NOT say that. The M.E. said that he now thinks that the level may have been high enough to have had an effect (which may or may not be the same thing as being intoxicated). Dr Bao gave the impression that the level was very near some borderline between being noticeable and not noticeable to the user.

So it's different on two counts from what you say he said.
just an fyi that may help you.

LOL My friend, please don't bring Dr. Bao into a discussion on logic and what he said was opinion or fact. We all know according to Dr. Bao the attorney's are not aware of how serious it is to testify and you can't rely on your memory to remember things because your memory isn't memory it's just what you remember your memory to remember. Plus remember, he changes his opinion "every hours".

Just FTR, and I don't really care to get into the "pot is safe" discussion. Nor do I care to discuss the legal definition of "impairment" relating to levels of THC in one's blood stream. Without suggesting you're speaking from first hand knowledge nor admitting that I am speaking from first hand knowledge, I would ask if you are asserting levels of THC in your blood stream equal to that which TM's had, in no way shape or form caused him to act in a manner his "normal" inhibitions would have precluded?

 

[Captain Adverse]

The problem I have with this is the actual importance of marijuana levels in the kids system. The jury is still out on the actual effect marijuana has on aggression levels:

"In general, after using marijuana a person experiences a sedating effect, which makes the drug less likely to cause violence in users than other substances such as alcohol and stimulants (e.g., amphetamines and cocaine). However, sometimes when marijuana is used it can cause fear, anxiety, panic or paranoia, which can result in an aggressive outburst. For most people, however, once the effects of the drug wear off, their behaviour gradually improves. Studies show that violence can occur more often among people who use marijuana regularly, rather than those who use it occasionally or not at all. It is unclear why this is the case..." Marijuana: Factsheets: Aggression

and....

"A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and mental illness. High doses of marijuana can produce a temporary psychotic reaction (involving hallucinations and paranoia) in some users, and using marijuana can worsen the course of illness in patients with schizophrenia...More research is still needed to confirm and better understand these linkages." DrugFacts: Marijuana | National Institute on Drug Abuse

You'd have to establish first that he was a "regular user." Also exactly what serves to define regular use? Then you have to determine if he had violent or aggressive tendencies prior to the time he began using. Then, you'd have to show in this situation that he was acting in a manner indicative of such behaviors.

Hard sell with such little evidence unless Zimmerman is willing to testify...which opens up new doors for the prosecution in direct cross-examination.

 

[Josie]

IIRC, the jury was out of the room when that all came up.

They were out of the room when they were talking about marijuana, but when they came back in and the defense continued to cross-examine Dr. Bao, West brought up toxicology and the state got all antsy and objected a couple times. The judge mentioned a "prior ruling" and to tread lightly. That was on purpose, I bet, so that the jury would wonder why they can't hear about toxicology. But now that it's admittable, they'll know what that was about.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

LOL My friend, please don't bring Dr. Bao into a discussion on logic and what he said was opinion or fact.

You brought him by talking about what he said.

Just FTR, and I don't really care to get into the "pot is safe" discussion.

You brought that one up. I don't think I mentioned anything of the sort.

Nor do I care to discuss the legal definition of "impairment" relating to levels of THC in one's blood stream.

That topic isn't one I broached.

...I would ask if you are asserting levels of THC in your blood stream equal to that which TM's had, in no way shape or form caused him to act in a manner his "normal" inhibitions would have precluded?

I am saying no such thing.
I said what I meant to say. You mis-characterized what Dr. Bao said.

I do not have any specialized knowledge which allows me to convert from ng/ml (or w/e the unit was) to a degree of intoxication.
I did not say anything even remotely close to what you're asking me about as far as what effects pot had on TM.
:shrug:

I did mention the way that pot is thought of (afaict--I didn't look up surveys or anything) and speculate from there the effect (or lack thereof) of that view on the jury.

 

[Oceandan]

You brought him by talking about what he said.
You brought that one up. I don't think I mentioned anything of the sort.
That topic isn't one I broached.
I am saying no such thing.
I said what I meant to say. You mis-characterized what Dr. Bao said.

I do not have any specialized knowledge which allows me to convert from ng/ml (or w/e the unit was) to a degree of intoxication.
I did not say anything even remotely close to what you're asking me about as far as what effects pot had on TM.
:shrug:

I did mention the way that pot is thought of (afaict--I didn't look up surveys or anything) and speculate from there the effect (or lack thereof) of that view on the jury.

I'll stand by MY statement of what the associate ME Dr. Bao said.

Globally, for those who are now saying THC levels in your body do not alter your behavior, I proffer this, would you be ok with your airline pilot or brain surgeon being on pot?

I've heard people making claims "I've never known someone on pot (I'm assuming they mean THC levels in the bloodstream, correct me if I'm wrong) get in a fight". I'll simple say this, if you believe THC has no effect on the physiology of the human body and especially the brain, you've taken too many drugs. (-;