State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Orlando News

The state said in motions filed on Friday they want to prevent Zimmerman's attorneys from bringing up Martin's personal life, including his school records, previous suspension from school, fights, text messages sent prior to his death unless related to case and his social media use.

The motion also says the state wants to prevent the defense from using Martin's toxicology report, which showed the level of marijuana in Martin's blood the night he was shot and killed.

If Zimmermans life outside of that night is relevant, then so is Martins.
If Martins' life outside of that night is off limits, then so is Zimmermans.
If Zimmermans 'general attitude' in life matters .. then so does Martins.
If Martins 'general attitude' in life doesn't matter .. then neither does Zimmermans.

Which ever way it goes ... It should be same/same for both of them. IMHO.

Well you are probably one of those people who think that if a women dresses sexy and gets raped she was asking for it. Or if that same woman was sleezy, or slutty and had lots of partners you could bring those things up at the trial to get an aquittal. Either way its wrong. Past behaviour is not relavant to what happened only what happened that night is important.

reply to post by FlyersFan


In a sense it is like a prostitute being raped. It has no bearing on the present act.

reply to post by flobot


The fact is even if the woman is a slut and spends a lifetime on her back rounding her heels her life prior to the attack is not relavant. Of course if the defense can get this in most jurors wont forget what they heard even if they are told to disregard. ( how do you un ring a bell) So yeah past history needs to stay out.

reply to post by karen61560


What if the woman making the accusation has a history of making verifiably false rape accusations or using a rape claim in an extortion attempt? Would that history be relevant? What about a man who has a history of sexual assault? Would that be relevant?

A person's history is absolutely relevant when trying to determine if that person is telling the truth.

My opinion is its typical of the prosecution to lay charges and really only focus on 1 thing...winning. Not justice being served. not acquitting an innocent man...only winning. A lot like a pro sports team. Winning is everything.

Once I would like to see a prosecuter lose a case and stand up and say "wow, sorry man" its always a travesty of justice if the prosecution loses. Meaning they have already made up their mind the accused is guilty.

So in the prosecutions quest to win the case and keep their 98-100% conviction rating (which only works in future office elections) will paint Trayvon as some young child skipping merrily home after buying his favorite candy..skittles

But the biggest issue in my opinion....They call Zimmerman a "White Hispanic"...like that matters. but I guess it does because heaven forbid a "white" guy stand up to the "inner city youth" of today.

If a black killed trayvon you wouldnt hear of it

If a black guy killed or assaulted a white guy you wouldnt hear of it

But good lord a "white" guy had the nerve to defend himself against a black!!!! National news.

Originally posted by buster2010
The classic defense if the victim can't defend themselves drag their name through the dirt. The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.

what?....Zimmerman, armed with a hand gun, had every right to run after a look-alike black ganster kid in a hoodie for walking down the street, confront him, wrestle him to the ground, and shoot him....he is innocent and he should be freed because it was self-defence (sarcasm fully engaged)

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by buster2010
The classic defense if the victim can't defend themselves drag their name through the dirt. The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.

what?....Zimmerman, armed with a hand gun, had every right to run after a look-alike black ganster kid in a hoodie for walking down the street, confront him, wrestle him to the ground, and shoot him....he is innocent and he should be freed because it was self-defence (sarcasm fully engaged)

Weird that you came up with that out of nowhere..........because thats not at all what the witnesses said........

I guess we dont need to examine that evidence tho right.........just make up whatever we want.......

God some people

Zimmerman has lied and changed his story a million times.

He's a murderer with a violent past himself.

Just for the record, Z was NOT on the neighborhood watch

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Zimmerman has lied and changed his story a million times.

He's a murderer with a violent past himself.

A murderer with a violent past and changed his story multiple times..........

again.....more people just talking.........

Please since you made the claims, please provide proof of his violent past and how he has changed his story...


Ill hold my breath

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by flobot
Martin in this case is the "victim.

Is he? Or is he a 'perp' that attacked the wrong person?
He may be dead. But that doesn't automatically make him a victim.

In this trial he is the "victim"...he is not on trial...just like a rape "victim".

Zimmerman is on trial, his past is relevant to determine a pattern of behavior for him...after all, he is the one that killed someone with a gun he carried out on the street with him.

They will probably keep references to his school suspensions and juvenile record out.

Those toxicology reports from the autopsy are coming in. I will eat my shoe if they don't as they are relevant to the incident.

We'll see.

reply to post by howmuch4another


From what I have read about the toxicology analysis there was evidence that he had smoked cannabis recently, but the levels were not high enough to indicate that he was intoxicated at the time. Even if he were totally wasted on weed it wouldn't mean much to me. It doesn't tend to make people violent like some other drugs, including alcohol, can. If anything he may have been less likely to attack Zimmerman if he had been high on cannabis.

Autopsy reports said medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine.

But Larry Kobilinsky, professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, told the AP that the THC amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior. He doubts the judge will even let it be used by the defense if they try to introduce it at trial.

"This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes," Kobilinsky told CBS News. "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out."

Source

reply to post by Slugworth


It will still come in. Not for thc but for residual traces of codeine. Like I said we'll see.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Orlando News

The state said in motions filed on Friday they want to prevent Zimmerman's attorneys from bringing up Martin's personal life, including his school records, previous suspension from school, fights, text messages sent prior to his death unless related to case and his social media use.

The motion also says the state wants to prevent the defense from using Martin's toxicology report, which showed the level of marijuana in Martin's blood the night he was shot and killed.

If Zimmermans life outside of that night is relevant, then so is Martins.
If Martins' life outside of that night is off limits, then so is Zimmermans.
If Zimmermans 'general attitude' in life matters .. then so does Martins.
If Martins 'general attitude' in life doesn't matter .. then neither does Zimmermans.

Which ever way it goes ... It should be same/same for both of them. IMHO.

Martin is not on trial. Zimmerman is. Martin can not defend himself or explain his actions. Zimmerman can.

That's the difference.

Regardless of whether Zimmerman is found guilty or innocent. His life changed forever when he stalked Martin.

This whole case will revolve around him not listening to the cops to back off. It shows intent. He wanted a confrontation, he got it and killed a kid. He was given sound advice by a legal authority: he ignored it. Now he will pay.

He should have stayed with the "stand your ground" defense. Switching strategies is not looked upon favorably by most judges.

Z better have a damn good lawyer because it't going to be a steep uphill battle.

I doubt if the past will be brought up by either attorney. But intent will be the focus by the DA.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by buster2010
The classic defense if the victim can't defend themselves drag their name through the dirt. The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.

He had a legal right to defend himself after being attacked (mounted and punched in the face). He didn’t chase the kid down the street and shoot him in the back; he was attacked! I hope the truth comes out.

This is nothing more than another zimmerman lie. He is a proven, inveterate liar, as confirmed by the previous judge on the case.

There was no DNA evidence or physical marks on Trayvon's hands that even approximated proof of the supposed struggle, as told by gz. This is also backed up by the fact that it was not deemed necessary for gz to be checked for a concussion, by his neat appearance in the police video, and by the fake butterfly bandages applied to his head after the fact.

Once the prosecution can prove that the "attack" scenario lied about by gz did not take place, he has absolutely no defense at all. gz is going to jail, where he belongs, for committing cold-blooded murder.

And to the OP, Trayvon did not have a criminal record -- gz did. Trayvon was not the perpetrator of a crime that fateful night, gz was. If anyone had the right to defend himself, it was Trayvon.

No, gz's criminal past and medication history is far more relevant to determining this case than any youthful indiscretions of Trayvon's. If what Trayvon did in his brief life was considered to be criminal, than half of the teenagers in the country would have to be jailed.

Without the obvious factor of race clouding this case, it is clear to the see who the real perpetrator was, and who needs to be incarcerated for a very long time.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Zimmerman has lied and changed his story a million times.

He's a murderer with a violent past himself.

A murderer with a violent past and changed his story multiple times..........

again.....more people just talking.........

Please since you made the claims, please provide proof of his violent past and how he has changed his story...


Ill hold my breath

Maybe you should try and use Google and the Internets. gz's violent, criminal past is very easy to find -- as is the fact that his story has continually changed.

gz is toast.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Um ... no. Martin has a violent past. What exactly is Zimmermans violent past?

In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." Both these felonies are considered third-degree.

In the same year (2005), Zimmerman's ex-fiance, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order, alleging domestic violence.

Originally posted by howmuch4another
They will probably keep references to his school suspensions and juvenile record out.

Those toxicology reports from the autopsy are coming in. I will eat my shoe if they don't as they are relevant to the incident.

We'll see.

Of course, gz should have been tested, but wasn't. That's one of the biggest miscues by the Sanford PD after an individual kills someone.

Trayvon Martin DID NOT have any record. Authorities confirmed to the Associated Press that Martin did not have a juvenile offender record.