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
“…he committed no crime either in following Martin and shooting him dead in self defense.” -davidm
Zimmerman had no business following Martin. And that’s the end of it from where I’m sitting.
Lottakatz –
You have to listen to lawyers carefully. While the photos might not be relevant to ZIMMERMAN’S actions, they are relevant in regards to the alleged actions of MARTIN.
If Martin is the innocent, defenseless child that the news media has portrayed him with pictures from when he was 12 years old, it would be hard for someone to believe Zimmerman’s story. However, if he is 6′ tall and capable of overpowering 5′ 8″ Zimmerman, and he thinks of himself as a “gangsta” and has photos of guns on his cell phone, and pictures depicting gangster style attitude flipping birds and what have you, then such evidence counters the bias created from all the media attention that drove to Zimmerman being arrested in the first place. It is wrong to allow the media depiction of Martin to go unchallenged in court. There is no doubt that everyone on the jury saw the one sided media portrayal of Martin and are biased by that imagery. Without Martin himself being alive to be in court, it seems very prudent that evidence such as this be allowed. If the prosecutors want to present other photos that depict a gentle, kind, and peaceful Martin, they are free to do so.
There was a lawyer on one of the prime time news shows that said in order for the new information to be relevant to Zimmerman’s actions Zimmerman would have had to know about it. In other words, if Zimmerman could say ‘I saw pictures of him with a gun and involved in drugs and this contributed to my fear that he was armed and would kill me if I didn’t shoot him’ or something to that effect then the material would be relevant and should be admitted. As it stands the information is stale and was unknown to Zimmerman, thus could not have had any effect on Zimmerman and the case.
That seems reasonable. Isn’t there a general rule for charging that alleged perps take their victims as they find them? Why would there not be some corollary line of reasoning in determining the relevance of character based evidence regarding the victim?
Rich 1, May 24, 2013 at 9:14 am
Slipping the bird is something you find in a huge proportion of online pics from someone in his age group.
…
======================================
Like Jeb the governatior’s lil brother.
David:
I checked the comments awaiting moderation and yours was not in there.
James, I tried to post twice, but my response to you is not going through. Maybe the moderator can get it out of the spam folder or wherever it went.
The defense is trying to taint the jury pool pure and simple. The judge needs to step in and take our lying (bond hearing), prejudiced (cousin’s words), sexually aberrant (cousin’s again), gun-happy (for all to see) little Barney Fife and sanction his arse. Then let him get in front of a jury of his peers. Southern juries know how to handle people who abuse kids — all kinds of kids.
There is better evidence than the cell phone photos and the photo of the defendant’s bloody face and head that have been introduced to the public by the defense counsel.
The better evidence of Trayvon’s drug use is the ME report of the autopsy. The better evidence of the defendant’s drug use are in one or more of his interviews with SPD where he identifies adderal and another that I don’t remember.
If the defense chooses to go down the road of vilifying the victim, the defendant will be the one who loses. The defendant’s past has instances of violence against a police officer and more than one woman.
I brought up the photos of the defendant b/c the back of his head shows only a couple of small lacerations, not what you’d expect to see from a series of head bashings on concrete. Further, the blood flow suggests that it was the defendant who was face down (over the victim). The lacerations were so not-serious that the defendant repeatedly refused to see a doctor and, when he saw the nurse practitioner the next day, no bandages were required. The picture of his bloody, swollen nose sure looks bad, but when compared to the official SPD picture taken only a short time later that same night, there is very little or no swelling. No medical person said it was broken. Imo, the defendant’s injuries were all self-inflicted.
I don’t see how the defense can show self-defense without putting the defendant on the stand. The prosecution can prove that Trayvon was shot by a single bullet from the defendant’s gun, that the defendant was standing over Trayvon with his gun in his holster, that Trayvon was unarmed, that there was NO DNA from the defendant on the victim except for one small drop of blood on his inner shirt, i.e., no DNA from the defendant on his hands or sleeves. Intent will be shown by the NEN call and maybe by the defendant’s initial written statement where he repeatedly calls Trayvon a suspect. A suspect of what? There were no open cases.
What Justice Holmes said.
“That is a fairly absolute observation.It is the pivot on which the case turns.”
It is a fairly undisputed factual observation. It is not in any way, shape, or form the determinative fact on which the case pivots, legally speaking. Following someone /= guilty of murder.
In the good old days back shooting was a hanging offense.
Juris says, “Admittedly, had he chose not to, the boy would not have been killed that night.”
That is a fairly absolute observation.It is the pivot on which the case turns. Past actions from either party are not relevant. Even if Zimmerman hadn’t lied to a judge about his finances and was Morel Orel, he would still be guilty of murder.
James, you speak in absolutes about things that are clearly in factual dispute about the way things went down.
E.g., “No one was in any danger until Zimmerman created it.” Zimmerman didn’t create danger by merely following the boy. Admittedly, had he chose not to, the boy would not have been killed that night. However, that does not automatically mean that Zimmerman created the danger or is guilty of murder.
To be clear, I am not arguing for or against, I am merely admitting that I don’t claim to know what happened as many do on both sides of case. I do think guilty or innocent is a closer issue than you know (or choose to admit). The jury will have to make those tough calls as to who to believe after they hear all the evidence by both sides.
I find it interesting that some who would hang Kate Hunt out to dry as a felon seem to be giving Zimmerman a pass of sorts. Hypocrisy stinks any time of the day.
DAvidm2575 claims “Zimmerman lived here. Martin did not.”
This is backwards. Martin was near the residence in which he was staying. Zimmerman was not. Zimmerman had to make the decision to follow him. It was that decision that will hang him. He was is no danger. No one was in any danger until Zimmerman created it.
We are not talking about fictitious other criminals. That is not relevant. They were not there that night.
That Zimmerman didn’t plan to murder Martin means he won’t be charged with 1st degree murder. Everything else is on the table.
None of your arguments justify the killing of an unarmed minor.
A dog barked, “So, either take Z’s statement that he was having his bead beaten into the concrete while laying on his back with punk face on top of him when the gun went off and rule that it was self defense from the bench, or allow the jury to hear all the bad stuff about dead guy.”
Option 3: It was Martin who was acting in self defense. Zimmerman’s exceedingly poor judgement led to this killing.
James wrote: “This is backwards. Martin was near the residence in which he was staying.”
It is not backwards. Zimmerman was a resident there. Martin was not. Martin lived in Miami Gardens. He was staying there as a guest of his father’s fiancee. Martin’s body was found 70 yards away from where he was staying, which is three quarters of a football field distance. Saying he was “near” the place where he was staying is debateable. The important aspect to this is that Martin was a stranger in this gated community for which Zimmerman was a community crime watch organizer. So Zimmerman sees Martin wearing a hoodie with his hands in his waistband, basically looking suspicious to him because he was walking nonchalantly in the rain in between the homes rather than on the street or sidewalk. He was a stranger in a gated community who looked and acted like a gang member who did not belong there. So he called 911 to have him checked out. Weeks before he had called 911 on another guy who was looking into windows, and the guy got away before the police arrived. It is perfectly reasonable that Zimmerman would follow Martin to make sure he did not get away.
Zimmerman had followed other people before that did not end with someone dying, so trying to argue that following Martin caused the death is fruitless. I suppose Zimmerman today wishes he had just walked away, but hindsight is always 20/20.
We have pictures of Zimmerman’s bloody broken nose, two black eyes, bloody lip, and lacerations and bruising on the back of his head. Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered with grass, indicating that he was lying on his back in the grass. Witnesses say that Martin’s knuckles were bruised and hurt, apparently from beating Zimmerman. Several witnesses report seeing a black man in a hoodie on top of another man, using martial art style punching to beat him up. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at this evidence and conclude that this 6′, 160 lb 17 year old Trayvon Martin was very likely shot in self defense.
The killing of an unarmed 17 year old minor is justifiable when that 17 year old is beating you up and you feel that your life is in danger. According to Zimmerman, Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun and said, “you are going to die tonight MF” as he reached to pull Martin’s gun from its holster. That was when Zimmerman reached and grabbed the gun first and shot him. He wasn’t sure if he had hit him well enough to subdue him, so he got on top of him at that point.
There is another piece of evidence that indicates the aggressive nature of Martin. Martin approached Zimmerman while he was in his vehicle on his phone with police in order to check him out. Martin circled the car and Zimmerman rolled up the window to avoid a confrontation. Martin started running, realizing perhaps that Zimmerman was talking to the police, and that is when Zimmerman got out of his car. So it sounds like we have two aggressive people here which caused this situation to escalate into a tragedy of someone getting killed. We don’t know who pushed who first, or who through the first punch, but there was definitely a physical altercation prior to the shooting.
David,
My older brother is a retired police officer, and he now works as an armed security officer. He has informed me that if a police dispatcher tells him (or any security officer and sometimes police officers) to back off the suspect, then, you are suppose to stop your pursuit immediately. What Zimmerman did, by illegally pursuing a ‘suspect,’ and then, having the end result to be the death of the suspect, is a crime.
However, I am not sure that it is a 1st degree murder; maybe 2nd degree murder or involuntary manslaughter? In FL, isn’t 2nd degree murder, still consider a felony murder? Or does it carry a harsh sentence, similar to 1st degree murder in FL?
RWL wrote: “if a police dispatcher tells him (or any security officer and sometimes police officers) to back off the suspect, then, you are suppose to stop your pursuit immediately.”
That is the perspective of police officers because they always want to be obeyed, but the truth is that citizens are only required to obey lawful orders given by the police. For example, in Florida if I am walking on the sidewalk and a police officer tells me to show him some ID, I can refuse to comply with his order because the law says that I am not required to show him ID.
Another factor to consider here is that this was not a “police dispatcher” in the sense of a police officer, but rather it was a 911 operator. We might loosely call the operator a “police dispatcher” in the sense that the operator dispatches the police to the scene, but this operator should not be confused with the police dispatcher at police headquarters who is a police agent who actually speaks directly with the units dispatched.
Security officers do not have the same authority as a police officer, so that is another matter also. I think it prudent not to confuse 911 operators, security officers, and police officers as if they each represent the same authority. They do not.
The bottom line is that Zimmerman did not ILLEGALLY pursue a suspect, and he committed no crime either in following Martin and shooting him dead in self defense.
Z was on his back getting his head banged into the concrete by punk when the gun went off. Defense of self. Under FL law the court should rule on the defense prior to trial and dismiss the charges. If it is a question of credibility of Zimmerman then it becomes a question of credibility of dead guy. Dead guy aint talking live. So dead guy’s statements about his predilictions should come in. So, either take Z’s statement that he was having his bead beaten into the concrete while laying on his back with punk face on top of him when the gun went off and rule that it was self defense from the bench, or allow the jury to hear all the bad stuff about dead guy.
“You still agree with Justice Holmes?”
Absolutely.
There is no evidence, not one shred, Martin was acting “gangster”. Whatever that is.
We do have Zimmerman’s own voice while he was in the act of predation, despite warnings from the 9/11 dispatcher not to go down that path. If you do not hear this and want to instead “wait for a jury,” be my guest. It changes nothing.
Zimmerman had no business to be where he was. Martin did.No amount “past bad behavior” on Martin’s part changes this essential fact. Nor is it any excuse that an unarmed minor ought to then lose his life to a predator with a chip on his shoulder. We do not need Zimmerman’s past. We have his present.
Where do you get this “level playing field on prior conduct evidence”? This is a criminal trial. Not a civil trial between two living persons. Dead guy ain’t talking. It that is him on his cell phone there is a witness who can identify him– cell phone records that it was broadcast from his cell phone, aside.
Z perceived him to be a dangerous “gangsta”. Deadguy’s own statement confirms it.
Prosecution has burden of proof beyond a reasonable dought of every element of the offense.
I wonder how many hung juries are going to happen in the case with these types of evidences being thrown in and out.
Blouise, let’s breakdown what Justice Holmes said:
“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.”
First of all, the police never told him not to follow the victim – it was a 911 dispatcher. Second, the fact that he did not listen to the 911 dispatcher does not automatically eliminate the self defense theory. Third, the victim’s history may very well be relevant, as may be his drug use. If he had 10 prior arrests for assault and battery in the last 2 years, you don’t think that would be relevant to show he has a general disposition for violence? Fourth, he is not a murderer if it was justified. And he has a right for the opportunity to present his case to a jury to make that determination. Finally, the fact that you are “tired of this man” is irrelevant.
You still agree with Justice Holmes?