Actually, if it came in at all it would be because the defendant in a criminal case typically gets more of a pass when it comes to getting potentially unfairly prejudicial evidence. The rules of evidence is more concerned about a defendant being unfairly prejudiced than a victim.
Here, what you worry about, as a judge I would imagine, is that the evidence of MJ use would lead the jury to believe, as many people on these boards have suggested, that TM is a dead beat kid who, even if murdered, isn't much use to society, etc. That type of conclusion, of course, is unfairly prejudicial.
Moreover, you have other issues. Even if the evidence makes it 1% more likely TM would act hyper aggressively, you would still have to show that he was affected by the drug at the time, which i am not sure there was evidence of that. That too would substantially diminish the probative value of the evidence. It would also take time to put on experts to have a trial within a trial in regards to how likely it was that TM was effected by the MJ at that time. All the while, the subtext is how TM is a dead beat druggy.
Moreoever, this evidence itself is only conditionally relevant to the issue at stake here, which is whether or not Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. Yes, perhaps it would make it marginally more likely that TM acted in a manner consistent with Zimmerman's story, and thus he acted reasonably in fearing for his life. But the Jury has other ways to evaluate the truthfullness of Zimmerman's story, without the state's case being subjected to an impermissible and irrelevant character assault.
Dolic
|