Why you shouldn’t be upset about the recent ruling in the Zimmerman case.

According to this story a Judge has ruled that at this time Trayvon Martin’s past is not admissible in the defense of George Zimmerman. While some feel that the jury has a right to know what a sweet and charming little angel Martin was, in reality it is not relevant to the case and neither is Zimmerman’s past as well in my opinion.

If this is presented as a clean case (which I doubt but bear with me) the prosecution and defense should focus solely on the events the night Martin was killed. The reason for this is the central foundation of Zimmerman’s defense. According to Massad Ayoob and proven in court and law multiple time the only way Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force is if he had a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm at the hands of Martin. Because the two had never met before that night Zimmerman had no idea who he was facing or anything about his past. Now if Martin’s past was known to Zimmerman then it would be relevant to his defense, just as the prosecution would be justified in bringing up Zimmerman’s past if it was known to Martin.

At this time my opinion is that the Judge made the right call and out of fairness he should apply the same restrictions to the prosecution as well. We’ll know in a few weeks just how interested the prosecution is in a fair trial for Zimmerman. If they drag him through the mud as I expect them to the Judge should lift his restrictions on Martin’s past. I honestly feel that what is known about the case right now to include the timeline and physical evidence place this prosecution in the questionable if not outright malicious category. However, it won’t be the first time an armed citizen has faced a politically motivated trial and I doubt it will be the last.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Why you shouldn’t be upset about the recent ruling in the Zimmerman case.

  1. However, the defense should object if the prosecution tries to use the outdated photos of TM. If the prosecution gets to pick and choose photos, the defense should as well.

  2. First, I believe the judge only rule the photos, texts, videos, etc could not be used in the opening statements. She left open the possibility of using them in the actual trial for later consideration.

    Second, I think the information should be allowed because it can present an explanation for Martin’s behavior; the drug use (drank, extensive marijuana ) has been known to increase aggression or paranoia. Martin’s experience with fighting can also be used to refute the “he was scared and just wanted to go home” claim or the claim that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the encounter. Witness 8, DeeDee, reported that she encouraged Martin to go to the house and Martin refused. So why did he refuses? His past provides a possible explanation, right?

    The photos, school records, and texts can also be used to support Zimmerman’s evaluation of Martin’s behavior that night. If the prosecution or family claims that “Martin wouldn’t do something like that’…..the defense should be able to show that he has in the past. Patterns of behavior are admissible according to my understanding.

    @ Chris Padar,

    However, the defense should object if the prosecution tries to use the outdated photos of TM.

    If I was the defense attorney, I would have two (2) life size photos made and presented. One of them would be Zimmerman the night of the attack — front and back — the other Trayvon as he was in some of the pictures fighting or flipping the bird. Stand them up in front of the jury side by side.