So how about that Zimmerman trial?

[Fael]

"drug use is ALWAYS considered in any crime like this"

Oh really. I don't think that is true. Particularly in a self-defense case, where the central issue is what Zimmermen knew about TM, and whether that informed his reasonable fear for his life. Perhaps if Zimmermen told the cop directly after the altercation, that TM was behaving and acting like someone on drugs, then it would be relevant that TM was in fact on drugs.

Dolic

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Hasbinfat [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This might have something to do with the fact that blacks and hispanics are far more likely to default on their loans, even when controlling for borrower and property characteristics.

but... that would be racist to assume :O

no

no it wouldn't

bankers take risks when they give you money. it's a fact, not racism, that minorities like blacks and mexicans cannot pay their bills as reliably as everybody else.

sorry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[TarukShmaruk]

Originally Posted by Fael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"drug use is ALWAYS considered in any crime like this"

Oh really. I don't think that is true. Particularly in a self-defense case, where the central issue is what Zimmermen knew about TM, and whether that informed his reasonable fear for his life. Perhaps if Zimmermen told the cop directly after the altercation, that TM was behaving and acting like someone on drugs, then it would be relevant that TM was in fact on drugs.

Dolic

It's relevant because it gives credence to his claim ,and thus the case of the defense, that Zimmerman was threatened and in fear of his life.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by TarukShmaruk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Frankly I don't think marijuana use has any real impact on someone's aggression, but drug use is ALWAYS considered in any crime like this. It seems odd that they'd want the jury to ignore it, yet allow the testimony.

I do find the judge to be a complete coward in not throwing the case out. O'Mara is right - the prosecution hasn't provided enough evidence in the SLIGHTEST to allow for a murder 2 conviction, and has already rested its case

What Dolic is referring to is Rule of Evidence 403 which is:

Originally Posted by rule 403

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

The judge is the sole gatekeeper of ALL evidence to be admitted. ANY evidence is relevant and admissible if it in ANY way makes the issues in question more or less likely to be true. However, the judge has the power to throw out relevant evidence if the risk of prejudice outweighs the "probative value." Which simply means "sure maybe he was high and it had a 1% chance of affecting his behavior. But come on the jury can't weigh that 1% they're gonna think he was high and that 1% just isn't worth it."

@ Dolic:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[TarukShmaruk]

So basically the prosecution gets to use it and not the defense. Because you can better believe that the prosecution would have used such evidence if they had it - and the judge would have allowed it.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by TarukShmaruk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So basically the prosecution gets to use it and not the defense. Because you can better believe that the prosecution would have used such evidence if they had it - and the judge would have allowed it.

The actual application is a bit more complicated, but yes it can boil down to that.

However, judges are careful because if it could be a big issue it will be preserved for appeal, and the last thing the judge wants is to get bench slapped by the appellate court for wrongly (dis)allowing something.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not doubling down on the race of anyone. The race of the real estate agent or loan officer is irrelevant. Systemic racism is SYSTEMIC.

Here's another study that shows blacks paying higher interest rates AT ALL INCOME LEVELS: Minorities pay more.

Here's another study showing minorities getting jacked in New York.

Here's an academic paper from an older study.

This one is from Harvard.

Not to be outdone, Yale weighs in.

Do you have enough links yet? While we're at it, do you know that data and analysis are not synonyms? Will it confuse the issue if I also mention that women also receive fewer loan approvals with identical financial information, pay more for their homes, and pay higher interest rates?

why would we delve into an avalanche of new links when you haven't satisfactorily demonstrated that your first referenced inequity is actually racist in nature? why do you preclude the possibility of non-racist causes for the systemic racial differences seen in the duke study? there is systemic racial inequity in standardized testing, but we generally don't ascribe it to racism. we're happy to explore cultural, historical, and educational trends that could account for such differences while acknowledging that there may not be a single, convenient catch-all explanation.

would it be unreasonable to believe white home buyers, on the aggregate, have more experience with the housing market, whether it be through education or a more robust family history of home owners?

i'm not necessarily suggesting that is the case -- i'm simply forwarding it as a reasonable interpretation of the data that does not require active forces of prejudice or racism within the housing market. that data could be a result of systemic racism, but it also could not be. if we are too hasty in our assessment of institutional racism, we risk undermining the consequence of the charge.

[Daldolma]

basically the issue is that you're seeing systemic inequality and calling it systemic racism without proving the latter. inequality isn't inherently racist. when the study in question is showing black sellers in black neighborhoods charging black buyers the same premium as white sellers in white neighborhoods, it should be clear that the seller's prejudices aren't a major factor. that leaves the buyer or some overarching controlling entity as the responsible party. you're claiming overarching control, but from whom? the study controls for access to loans, so it's not the banks. you're laughing at splorf's "invisible hand" of the free market while positing an "invisible hand" of racism.

[Fael]

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

[Barkingturtle]

There's an argument to be made that Zimmerman really did Martin a favor by saving him 3% on the cost of his future home.