We have a new filing in the trial of George Zimmerman with his counsel demanding to use pictures and text messages from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. The question will become one of relevance as well as prejudice as Zimmerman’s legal team tries to show that Martin had a violent or criminal disposition.
Some of these pictures in my view can be kept out of the trial. However, the defense has a legitimate right to evidence showing a prior disposition — just as the prosecution has that right. What is striking is that the prosecution wants to introduce a host of pre-statements and actions to paint Zimmerman as a racist or violent individual. However, they oppose such evidence related to Martin. Zimmerman’s defense is that Martin attack him and he wants to show that Martin had problems before that night, including his mother demanding that he leave the house and live with his father.
Images like Martin flipping the bird at the camera strike me as prejudicial and best kept out of the trial.
Here is the standard:
90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.–Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible.
The images come from Martin’s Huawei phone including what may be a self-picture of Martin holding a Smith and Wesson handgun. However, while it appears taken by the person holding the cellphone, there is no proof it is Martin unless the defense has found contemporary witnesses. Other photos show the gun and potted marijuana plants. The defense also wants to introduce evidence that Martin was suspended for fighting from school. This includes texts from November 2011 in which he says that his mother has kicked him out of the house after “da police caught me outta skool.” His friend responds “So you just turning into a lil hoodlum.” Martin responds “Naw, I’m a gangsta.” In other messages, Martin discusses guns like one that asks “U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out).”
I do believe that Zimmerman is entitled to introduce prior conduct evidence as is the prosecution. It cannot be one sided. The question is where to draw the line in such pictures and text messages. I do not see how the gun picture can be admitted absent proof that it is Martin holding the gun. Clearly there is a strong argument that it is him since it is his cellphone, but that remains speculative. It does seem to me that the playing field has to be level on the prior conduct evidence. The prosecution can argue that it has a closer nexus to introduce prior conduct related to Zimmerman’s anti-crime views and activities. However, it will also be asking to introduce other evidence.
These are always tough calls for the courts. Clearly both of the characters of these individuals are on trial given the theories of the prosecution and the defense. Young boys often joke of guns and crime and such messages can be misleading. Yet, the defense is claiming that these statements match his conduct on that night. The court could allow the evidence on both sides in and allow opposing counsel to make these points. However, there remains the prejudicial impact on the jury. I would expect that this evidence would be highly influential on some members of the jury.
Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Source: CNN
Terminator whines, “the kid has every characteristic of a hoodlum. ”
*****************
I wish he would articulate each and every characteristic he deems important in his assertion. We’d get a better picture of him — terminator that is.
The jury is already prejudiced. No one picked can say they have not heard about the story, or about Zimmerman or Martin.
It is no surprise they will present the victim as a bad guy and try to pin it on him. That was evident a long time ago.
What Justice Holmes said
James, can you say hypocrite. You are guilty of the same criticism you allege against david:
From your post: “You want to assign to him intent you assume.”
Also from your post: “’Not on my watch,’ he was heard saying. His intent was clear.” Does Zimmerman’s statement really show “clear” intent to murder?You are guilty of what you accuse david of doing, i.e., you assign to him intent you assume.
I am with nick spinelli, I will reserve judgment until all the facts come out. I am usually for allowing more evidence than not, and leave it up to the jury decide. The judge will have some tough decisions to make, but the prosecution is not doing itself any favors by going into Zimmerman’s character.
I must admit, I have been sickened by the way the media has generally reported on this from day one. Zimmerman was vilified from the start.
Davidm2575 claims,”was acting like a gangster that night,”
This is prejudicial baloney. What you consider “gangster” is not a universal interpretation and has no place in a criminal proceeding. It is a very troubling comment. Just say “gangster” and I can commit murder scott free.
Zimmerman had no business being where he was. Martin did. There is no excuse for Zimmerman’s predatory behavior. “Not on my watch,” he was heard saying. His intent was clear.
By saying Martin was “acting like a gangster” means nothing. You want to assign to him intent you assume. There was no reason for an unarmed teenager to loose his life by someone who was clearly out to cause trouble.
Please stop excusing George Zimmerman. He is a killer.
James wrote: “Zimmerman had no business being where he was. Martin did.”
On what basis do you argue this? Zimmerman lived here. Martin did not. Zimmerman was part of a community watch group who regularly surveyed the area because of many local thieves stealing from the neighborhood. Even ignoring all these facts, they are both American citizens and have equal rights to be in public places.
James wrote: “Not on my watch,” he was heard saying. His intent was clear.
Yeah, his intent was clearly to not let this person escape the police like the previous thieves escaped. He called 911 because his intent was NOT to kill him, but to have the authorities check him out. Who calls 911 when he is planning to kill someone except the stupid criminals who do butt calls like the recent article from Turley mentioned? The 911 call itself is evidence that Zimmerman was not planning to murder Martin.
What’s the relevance? He had a picture of himself flipping the bird therefore he was more likely to have attacked Zimmerman? He has a picture of himself holding a gun therefore he was more likely to have attacked Zimmerman (although he didn’t have a gun on that night)? These inferences are so so weak that I wouldn’t let them in. I don’t know about the type of evidence the prosecution is supposedly trying to get in on Zimmerman’s past, but I’m inclined to say it should all also be excluded if it’s no better than this stuff.
Terminator whines, “the kid has every characteristic of a hoodlum. ”
Prejudicial baloney. Nor is this any reason for his murder.
Tim Mac claims, ” not negate his rights to prevent himself from having his brains Bashed out on the pavement ”
Is this what really happened? Were you there? Would you have obeyed the 911 dispatcher when you were told not to follow? Are “they” not going to get away on YOUR watch, either?
James, following someone is not a crime, even if a 911 dispatcher tells you not to follow someone. While it might be true that the altercation would not have happened if Zimmerman walked away, if Zimmerman’s account is true, it would not have happened if Martin had not attacked him.
There is photographic evidence supporting Zimmerman’s claim of Martin bashing his head against the pavement. What 17 year old carries on his personal cellphone pictures of guns and gangster type expressions? These photos support Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was acting like a gangster that night, giving him reason to call 911 and to follow him, and giving him reason to defend himself when he felt that his life was in danger.
The real lesson here for everyone is to teach children not to emulate gangsters and bullies. Children need to be taught values like honor, honesty, discipline, courage, respect for authority, civil discourse, earn money through hard work, etc.
What’s important in this case is what happened that night, not what happened in previous weeks. The defendant has told many versions of his story, none of which hold water. I don’t see anything that suggests that the prosecution wants to bring up the defendant’s past behavior. If a leaning toward violence is the issue, there could be an argument about the effects of marijuana vs. adderal.
I really don’t see a kid (just turned 17) who has voiced concern about a creepy man following him, who runs to get away from the creepy guy and successfully, he thinks, loses him, is the one looking for a physical confrontation.
The defense has filed several motions and made oral arguments that include misleading statements. Nearly all of his motions have been denied but the jury pool doesn’t know how misleading his statements are.
btw, What was found by an audio expert on the NEN call is “These a$$holes they all get away” followed by a whispered “but not on my watch”.
Justice Holmes your an idiot, and your cartoonish version of self defense is evidence of it. A witness walking down the street to see where a suspect went does not negate his rights to prevent himself from having his brains Bashed out on the pavement …..and anyone who thinks having their head bounced off the pavement is not a lethal force situation should have their hl l they are idiots and quite mistaken…..two bounces should probably suffice, Rambo. ;)forced to armstl ead bounced off the pavement unti
I agree with Justice Holmes. Zimmerman’s brother has been a constant on Twitter with BS regarding his brother’s self-defense, etc. Anything to try to influence any jury that may be selected. He is a cold blooded murderer….period.
Justice Holmes’s point is unfortunate because the same logic–“He [or she] has admitted to shooting the victim. The victim died. He [or she] is a murderer. Done.”–could be used to convict a woman defending herself against an abuser, an African American defending herself against a hate crime, or any other number of situations wherein there would be a defense to a charge of murder in the second degree.
The pro Zimmerman people have taken the lead out of the gate, but we know the anti-Zimmerman people will be making a run in the backstretch. I’m just watching this race, I don’t have a bet down.
It boils down to our crazy justice system where the prosecution fights the defense any way it can with little regard to the truth of the matter. The judge is supposed to be the ‘truth ombudsman’ but is usually more caught up in procedure and often biased. The system occasionally works okay if the judge is good. Obviously both sides should be permitted character evidence if one side, the prosecution, is so permitted. There is a book,’The Law’ by Frederic Bastiat that every lawyer & every voter of legislation should read. Though it is written at a time when little was ever said without bringing God into it, the main point that governments violate the law more than they adhere to it, is very clear.
Well said Justice Holmes!
Zimmerman’s attorney will do anything to keep this case on HLN and the Nancy Grace Show. His attorney was on CNN a few days ago.
I think it all should be admitted, including the photos of guns. It paints a picture of his character. The news media painted an innocent picture with photos of Trayvon at 12 years old. That needs to be countered with more recent pictures showing Trayvon interested in guns, marijuana, cursing, etc. This is especially important when the defense alleges that Trayvon attacked George resulting in self defense while the prosecution alleges the sweet innocent boy was targeted by George.
the kid has every characteristic of a hoodlum. the evidence, if authenticated, should be heard by the jury. if these kids and their parents don’t want them stereotyped, they should behave in conformity with law abiding society and not emulate “gangstas”.
should be “Flipping the bird”
Slipping the bird is something you find in a huge proportion of online pics from someone in his age group. Not classy, but likely also not meaningful. Prediction of violence is pretty difficult and images like these may seem vivid to people of a certain age and background but are probably of zero relevance. One would hope that Martin has a non-sleazy psychologist as an expert witness to address this.Zimmerman has all kinds of things that raise character issues for him and opening the door to that is not necessarily a winning strategy.
Once Zimmermann chose to follow the victim in direct contravention of what the police told him to do, he has no defense and the victims history and drug use is irrelevant. Zimmermann should have allowed the police to deal with the situation he claims was in process. He didn’t want to; he wanted to act like a Rambo. I am so tired of this man. He has admitted to shooting the victim. The victim died. He is a murderer. Done.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander in this case…. To tell you the truth…. We will never know the Real truth….