We previously discussed the effort of the defense team for George Zimmerman to introduce text messages, pictures, and history showing that Trayvon Martin had a history of discipline and drug problems. Judge Debra Nelson ruled today that most of this evidence would be kept out despite the fact that Zimmerman’s history and prior statements will be likely introduced. Zimmerman is arguing that it was Martin who attacked him and that this evidence shows a troubled teen with an obsession with guns and gangsta culture.
As I mentioned before, 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 attacked 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.
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).”
Images like Martin flipping the bird at the camera strike me as prejudicial and best kept out of the trial.
The judge left open the possible introduction of some evidence if it becomes relevant later. However, for now, the evidence is out. I understand the order on some of the evidence, but I am less convinced on other pieces of evidence. For example, Nelson declined for now to rule admissible toxicology tests showing Martin had enough THC — the key active ingredient in marijuana — to indicate he may have smoked the drug a couple of hours before the shooting. It seems to me that contemporaneous drug use within hours of the incident in the case would be relevant to Zimmerman’s defense.
Nelson did not appear particularly concerned by the failure of the prosecution to turn over critical pieces of evidence to the defense — a common complaint over alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
She also barred evidence on the delay to arrest Zimmerman despite it indicated that police and prosecutors viewed the case as a likely matter of self-defense. She also ruled against a defense motion to have the jury visit the crime scene, which she described as “disingenuous” in light of another defense motion requesting anonymity for the jury. I fail to see the basis for that dig at the defense and it undermined Nelson’s credibility on the evidentiary motions.
There is an obvious concern over the publicity and public anger surrounding the case and how it affected the prosecutors and the court. As stated earlier, I believe the prosecutors yielded to public pressure in overcharging the case. While Nelson came down hard against the defense today, many judges favor the prosecution in such motions. The rulings however do raise the concern that character evidence will be introduced against Zimmerman but denied to his defense in discussing Martin. It may come down to whether the prosecutor trips the wire in its examinations but the remaining evidence will not be available during the key opening arguments for the defense.
Source: CNN
I haven’t been following the case in minute detail, but I have read most of the reports on the various pretrial hearings held to date. I have not seen anything to change my initial view that this is a manslaughter case.
The bottom line is that Zimmerman is not going to get equal treatment. The Court will allow all sorts of prejudicial nonsense into the record to paint Zimmerman as a mad, racist, evil, killer. The Court will not allow any evidence into the record, however, that would show Martin to be the same or worse.
In a true just Court, either past, unrelated conduct and behavior is relevant or it is not. And a just Court that allows such evidence into the record for one side, will also do it for the other.
But this is not a just Court. Most Courts today are merely political rubber-stamping operations that work for one special interest or another. Early indications have already proven the Court in this case to be pro-Martin, twisting, bending, and turning every angle to Martins favor. I expect that Court conduct to continue unabated.
This dog is not stickin up for Z because he was a Mexican and the dead guy was black and nor is this dog against the right of anyone to skiddle around in broad daylight or nightime to size up the goods available in the gated community. Race or ethnicity does not factor into this dog’s take on the situation. Age does to some extent. Young punks should not think they have a pass because they have not reached age 18 and thus jump some guy and beat his head into the concrete. A 17 year old can be one tough hombre. Been there back when I was a human in my prior life. I think that Z is credible. I think that a jury will believe him and it will be a short period of time for deliberation. If mommy and daddy are allowed to testify that Trayvon was a wonderful kid who would not hurt a flee then the real stuff should come in to counter that apCray.
Everyone will have to face Gods light that Moses could not see or die in. Have people see this;’ wild animals, crickets bats and cliff swallows will inhabit legal buildings.
LeaNder,
Right. Why would the prosecution for this case go into any reason for a delay in the arrest? There may be an investigation of the delay, but it isn’t de la Rionda, et al. and it won’t be brought up by the prosecution.
The ring of insincerity shows in that they are denied. They are theater art for the jury pool. It gives defense attorney the opportunity to make misleading statements and post irrelevant photos and commentary in his motions.
Oh, and if Zimmerman testifies, character evidence re his truthfulness will come in for impeachment purposes
Malisha —
I don’t do anything fast unless the dinner bell is ringing.
I was stunned by the false equivalency in the professor’s remarks re character evidence. Just because character evidence about one party is admissible does not by itself mean that character evidence of another party may also be admitted. The evidence must be be material – relevant and of persuasive value – to the issue at hand to be admitted.
Late on a dark night Zimmerman, a non-black adult male with a handgun, stalked Trayvon Martin, a black teenager who was alone with no one else about. One must be myopically obtuse to fail to recognize the life or death situation that Trayvon could reasonably believe he was facing. But Zimmerman;’s character evidence is material in cutting through the myopia: is he the sort of fellow who would have acted in a manner that would have caused Trayvon to fear for his life.
If so, Trayvon’s choice was to flee or fight. Whether he made the correct decision is immaterial – Florida law says he could fight and his background doesn’t have anything to do with his choice of self defense.
I would probably believe the same even if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman. How does an unarmed person fight an aggressor? Until one of you isn’t moving. Which means if Trayvon struck the first blow, good on him. Waiting until you are a victim is waiting too long.
Zimmerman created this mess regardless of what Trayvon did. I’m all in with an eye for an eye on this one.
After thought — Even if Zimmerman’s character evidence isn’t admissible at the guilt stage, it certainly is at the punishment phase and thus further weakening any kindergarten if-he-can-do-it-so-can-I equivalency.
People, stop trying to take the place of God’s glory. Not wise.
BarkinDog is still trying to piss up the wrong tree, I see. What shows through is his real resentment that a young Black dog was walking along on some white dogs’ turf and he’ll be really cute in denying this. But those of us with intact sense of smell know what’s buried and just how shallowly.
Sell more woof tickets, Barkin, see how much they’re going for now.
Should we have a new installment of the “Propaganda 101” articles now?
Pix of Trayvon Martin opposite black hand holding gun maybe?
See, e.g., http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1434233
thanks Betty, that puzzled me too, most of all:
You know what the statement reminded me of vaguely? The odd verbal games around GZ the “sacrificial lamb” or the “political victim”. Somehow “topsy-turvifying” matters.
One of the deeply insincere recent arguments by defense comes to mind:
Again, why would prosecution do such a thing? A) it’s not their job to bother about that, B) their hands are much more bound in this respect than defense’s would be, were things the other way round. That’s where it becomes interesting, and political in a more disguised fashion than the stark political argument in the writ..
Almost all of defense’s recent motions or writs had such a ring of a hard to disguise deep insincerity to them.
Defendant interviews with the police can be heard here:
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/
Hey BarkinDog: I would be barkin at him not humpin his leg.
Oro Lee, hey, I’m glad to type witcha! (I type fast because I live by my fingers; but you still talk fast!) 😀
rwl, “Unless the prosecutor has more evidence that she is not sharing….”
Bingo.
The ADA on this case Bernie de la Rionda.
Some people in FL, particularly old artFays in gated communities, do not think that they need dogs. If that punk came onto our marina at night there would be several dogs yapping at him and one humpin his leg for fun. Skiddles or no skiddles this punk did not need to be looking over the goods in the condo community. Get some dogs. They were lucky to have a Zimmerman. There are not enough cops in FL to police all the gated old artFay communites and keep out the thieves with the Skiddle alibis and the hoodies.
I do not know if there is anyone to validate Z’s version that Z was on his back getting his head beat into the concrete when the gun went off. Dead guy wont be telling his side. If you are on the jury and you believe the witness Z then you free the witness Z in about ten minutes of deliberation. The judge needs to take up bankruptcy law.
that’s how it works. From insinuations and hearsay to reality, easy transformation. Team O’Mara deposed a highly accomplished forensic scientis of the State of Florida, who has not worked on marijuana, only on hard drugs, but who in turn quoted some recent research by a specialist on marijuana. This leady is mainly concerned with brain function and memory impact in the diverse group of users. Nothing about agression, just brain function, the ability to memorize things. In her studies it shows that there is a difference between long term and unregular or occasional users. O’Mara simply picks up what he likes, and twists it to fit his designs. I am pretty sure the man would contradict the way he took his statements out of context.
Equally sinister is O’Mara’s allusion to Trayvon wavering in the 911 video. That’s extreme right wing expertise. If you watch the video in it’s normal speed the wavering disappears. Nothing there. Yes he moves a little as he tries to get the money out of his pocket, not so easy they seem pretty deep.
It is really, really sad, if people like Jonathan Turley find this type of argument convincing, good night, the rest is darkness. And don’t realize they are in the process of being manipulated, just as the jury will be by the polite machiavellian O’Mara. But even he conceded that they got all from Nelson what they wanted, maybe not in one case, and in that case I would have advised her to not allow it. Since it was obvious what the intention was.
No disingeniousness, I am sorry. She suggested alternatives like a video for the jury. She only slyly pointed out the contradiction, you either want the jury absolutely anonymous or you want to take a chance that witness #13, or #6 or #20 or whoever at RTL, rushes to the window, or steps outside and takes a couple of cell phone photos of them and then puts them on the net or sells them to TV stations. I am quoting Nelson here, not verbatim admittedly.
Let’s see how the supreme court of Florida responds to the sinister political pressure at a the end of the writ of certiorari or it’s to a large extend deceptive arguments. I am curious. Considering that, I think Nelson keeps well and rules fairly.
That puzzles me most:
As I understand it, if one side brings in this kind of evidence they other can. She only blocked at one point, no chance for defense without the rule by the court. And at that point, I would have advised her to not allow it, because it was obvious what the intention was in that context. Pretty obvious, if you ask me.
You start out with this:
Seems I have watched a different hearing. And since there is not much media created news from prosecution, I am wondering why you think this is so obvious. Is it? If so, I missed it.
That he obviously mainly almost only reported young black males, is simply a fact and connected with his NEN call on February 26. Just as “they” always get away. I guess that is pretty hard to keep out. But apart from that I am at a loss.
Damn, I type slow. I should have checked to see if Malisha had posted before hittin the “post comment” button. I could have simply said, “Great job, Maliha!”
But not wanting to waste the effort of creating my previous post — imagine if Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon white. The dude would already have been convicted of first degree murder.
The judge got all the rulings right.
Zimmerman is an adult male. he is not black.
Trayvon is a teenage male. He is black.
Zimmerman was armed with a gun.
Trayvon was unarmed.
Zimmerman stalked the teenager. he was under no duty to stalk the teenager.
It was dark. It was late at night. It was outdoors. The teenager was alone. There were no witnesses.
There is no allegation of any “reasonable, articuable reason” that would permit a LEO to stop the teenager let alone any probable cause to believe that he had committed or was about to commit a crime.
Zimmerman is not a LEO and had no cause let alone any right to stop the teenager.
A confrontation ensued between the unarmed teenager and the adult gunman who was stalking him.
Zimmerman used his gun to kill the teenager.
In light of the obvious threat posed by a teenager being stalked late at night, outdoors in the dark, in the absence of any witnesses, by an adult armed with a handgun, does it matter who confronted the other? Under those circumstances, did not the teenager have the right to stand his ground?
How does any of the material kept out of evidence by the judge impinge on Trayvon’s right to stand his ground? Assume Trayvon was the baddest-ass, multiple repeat offender in all of Florida — would he not still have the right to stand his ground if being stalked in the dark late at night by an armed adult male?
Zimmerman, and solely Zimmerman, created the situation in which Zimmerman killed Trayvon. Why should Zimmerman be permitted to avoid the natural consequences of his reckless behavior by impugning the character of the person who chose to stand his ground in response to Zimmerman’s behavior?
Travon isn’t around to tell his side of the story, but Trayvon didn’t kill anyone. Zimmerman’s actions prevent Trayvon from being present. Zimmerman shouldn’t benefit from the loss he caused.
To hear the interviews of Zimmerman by the two detectives, go to the AxiomAmnesia website.