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

[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.]

[Freeport]

Doesn't matter- Zimmerman will walk and he should. If I was in the same position I probably would have done the same thing because there are some crazy motherfuckers out there. This goes for anyone who attacks me when im carrying my pistol. If im at fear for my life ill fucking blow your head off. Thanks

Also I like how this is such a white on black hate crime. It gets so much media attention. The media is warping everyone's views on what happened during this trial, during the Paula Deen bullshit and much more.
I wish for once the media would talk about something worth my while. A mexican dude shot a thug. Who gives a flying fuck its called "Natural Selection".

The thing is. Racism will never end. As Racism gets better reverse racism gets worse. It will never stop.

There are worse "hate crimes" done upon white people but its all ignored by the media because they don't want to start "racial tension".

[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.

[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

[TarukShmaruk]

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

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

I think the issue I have here is that any drugs or alcohol in Zimmerman's system at the time would have been brought into the trial, but drugs or alcohol in Martin's system could have had the same affect (perhaps made Martin more aggressive or reckless in his assault on Zimmerman).

That said I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of the world has tried to kill someone *because* they were high.

[Malice_Mizer]

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

I think the issue I have here is that any drugs or alcohol in Zimmerman's system at the time would have been brought into the trial, but drugs or alcohol in Martin's system could have had the same affect (perhaps made Martin more aggressive or reckless in his assault on Zimmerman).

That said I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of the world has tried to kill someone *because* they were high.

Good thing the definitely not-racist Sanford Police Department drug tested the dead body of Trayvon Martin but didn't bother asking a thing of the ZimZam. He could have been on PCP for all we know. That would actually shed a lot of light on this case.

[Supreme]

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

Good thing the definitely not-racist Sanford Police Department drug tested the dead body of Trayvon Martin but didn't bother asking a thing of the ZimZam. He could have been on PCP for all we know. That would actually shed a lot of light on this case.

Toxicology reports come from the coroners office.

I would like to spin this event though. Lets say that Zimmerman was a woman...and everything happened EXACTLY like it has been explained.

Would you still hate a lady Zimmerman?