State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

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.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I'm surprised it went this way....but then, I'm not sure it wasn't the right call too? Hard one....

On one hand...we have the criminal history and rather extensive accomplishments in that area for a kid so young. That fit to the state of mind of Zimmerman and what he believed he was following and later, tried to beat him half to death on the ground (He didn't give himself those injuries, after all).

On the other hand...his past doesn't put him where he was that night and technically had no cause/effect to why he was out that night. So...legally, not admissible as "prior bad acts" or any pattern to make by it..right?

The difference between truth and justice...eh? Still.. that's the rub. If we were in the kid's position (Obviously, non-fatal for the example), would we want things about our own past...which had 0 to do with actions in question...making a trial about what wasn't relevant? Talk about a decision that isn't half a clear as we'd want it to be.

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.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Trevon Martin isn't being accused of any crime. Trying to make the jury think that Zimmerman was right in killing him, because he was probably thinking about committing a crime, at some point, is the crux of the issue, really.

The prosecution is trying to stop the jury from being influenced in their judging Zimmerman's actions, that led to the death of Martin,, by convicting Martin, in the absence of evidence of a crime.

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.

I believe the trial process is to establish whether he did or did not have that legal right of defense in this case.

Nice to see the 'innocent until proven guilty' approach is still alive and well, though. :shk:

reply to post by FlyersFan


I’m not surprised Treyvon’s criminal past won’t be admissible. Previous criminal acts really should NOT be considered when ruling on his actions the night he encountered Zimmerman. I also don’t believe Zimmerman’s past should be brought up (whatever that past might be – good or bad). The case should be judged on the actions of both parties the night of the incident. That's how the system is supposed to work.

I can’t wait to see how this plays out. It was such an overblown incident with tons of manufactured outrage. Things like this happen all the time. Why was this case special? Because Obama said so? It was simply another example of Obama sticking his nose where it didn’t belong (like the Cambridge PD incident).

S&F

Originally posted by windword
Trevon Martin isn't being accused of any crime.

True. It's not Martins trial. HOWEVER .. he's being accused in the press and by Zimmermans team. Martin is being accused of attacking Zimmerman. that's Zimmermans defense. So by Zimmerman bringing in Martins life history of other fights and drug use, I'm sure he and the defense team hope to establish that their version of events is probable with the jury. I'm sure that's why the Martin team wants it thrown out.

At any rate .. if Martins life outside of that night is off limits .. then so is Zimmermans. If Martins attitude is irrelevant .. then so is Zimmermans. If the Martin team tries to bring in anything about Zimmerman that doesn't pertain to that particular evening ... then Martins life (and all his dirt) should also be allowed.

Same/same IMHO.

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.

reply to post by seabag




If the Martin team wants to get Martins' drug use and fighting and (alleged) thefts kept out of court, then Zimmermans life should also be kept out of court. Martins team shouldn't be able to keep all that out of the court room, but then drag up Zimmermans life history. I am of the opinion that it should be the same/same for both ... either it's all in or it's all out .. FOR BOTH.

Originally posted by buster2010
The classic defense if the victim can't defend themselves drag their name through the dirt.

Is it 'dirt' if what they say is true and pertains to the case and the defense?
Or is it just getting to the truth? I guess it depends on the case.

reply to post by FlyersFan

True. It's not Martins trial. HOWEVER .. he's being accused in the press and by Zimmermans team. Martin is being accused of attacking Zimmerman. that's Zimmermans defense. So by Zimmerman bringing in Martins life history of other fights and drug use, I'm sure he and the defense team hope to establish that their version of events is probable with the jury. I'm sure that's why the Martin team wants it thrown out.

True. But the prosecution can also argue "self defense" on behalf of Martin, who lost his life in the struggle.

Originally posted by windword
But the prosecution can also argue "self defense" on behalf of Martin, who lost his life in the struggle.

Definately.

So if they have to use Zimmermans life outside of that night to establish a pattern of behavior (being super-renta-cop, etc) ... wouldn't that also open the door to use Martins life outside of that night (drugs, fights, theft) to establish a pattern of behavior as well??

reply to post by FlyersFan


I totally understand why Zimmerman’s team wants to paint the picture that Treyvon was a thug. The problem is that it would lead to speculation about how Treyvon acted that night. You can’t speculate in court when someone’s life is on the line…you have to examine the facts as presented by both sides.

The question that needs to be answered is – Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Treyvon that night? Treyvon’s thuggish past had no bearing on Zimmerman’s actions that night. Only Treyvon’s actions THAT NIGHT matter in this case. Same goes for Zimmerman...the jury doesn't need to hear what he did the week or month or year before this incident.

This whole dog and pony show is still going on?

I thought the media had gotten their race card kicks already this year already? I guess not.

Oh well, I agree that if it's good for one, than it's good for the other.

~Tenth

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.

You were there? Why haven't you come forward to testify?

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.

So if someone is smashing your head into the sidewalk you have no legal right to shoot them??? Of course you do. Martin was killed WHILE committing a crime. Zimmerman had EVERY right to defend his own life. I state this opinion without consideration of EITHER participants' background, tox reports, etc.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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.

You were there? Why haven't you come forward to testify?

Witness?? No, but I would gladly sit on the jury.

The witnesses saw Treyvon attack Zimmerman and mount his chest. That's assault. Zimmerman is innocent in the court of public opinion...at least in the eyes of those of us who support the right to self defense. If there is a disparity of force (you're getting your arse kicked) and you fear for your life you have the right to defend your life with lethal force.

The only reason that I could see Martin's past being relevant would be if Zimmerman knew him prior to the event and it was a factor in his decision making. As far as I am aware he did not know Martin. Zimmerman is the one on trial, therefore his past is highly relevant. If things had gone differently and Martin had taken the gun and shot Zimmerman the same concept would still apply: If they had no prior knowledge of each other Martin's past would be the one in question, and Zimmerman's would be irrelevant.

I think its safe to say they both made bad decisions that night, but we can only scrutinize Zimmerman's account because Martin is dead. Any time someone is killed the recollection given by the killer of what happened deserves scrutiny. It is no different for police who shoot someone while working. Any relevant background information that can be compiled which may have informed their decisions (training, experience, criminal record, or lack of these) should be considered.

Originally posted by seabag
The question that needs to be answered is – Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Treyvon that night?

There ya' go.

When a rape victim is in court, many times the defense will try to bring up her sexual history.
It is irrelevant to the rape that happened. It can't be used in court.

WIth Martin and Zimmerman, what they may or may not have been doing elsewhere, or what
their 'attitudes' are ore aren't are irrelevant to what happened that night. The only question ..
was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin THAT NIGHT.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
This whole dog and pony show is still going on?

It'll be going on loooooooooong after the trial is over. That's my prediction.

I agree that if it's good for one, than it's good for the other.

That's my position. Either the 'attitudes' and histories of both of them count
or the 'attitudes' and histories of neither count.

I would hope that neither would matter and only the events of that evening would.
Just like in a rape case ....
But I guess we'll see ...