Originally Posted by rnoldh
Serious question ( yeah, really serious )
You are a lawyer. Wouldn't you say that more or certainly as much negative information was not allowed about Trayvon as for Zimmerman?
Zimmerman could have been painted as an angry troublemaker as well as a cop wannabe. As I recall. his previous anger management experiences and stuff like these recent events were not allowed. But surely Trayvon could have been portrayed as a troubled gang banger wannabe, but that was not allowed.
IMO, the Judge was pro-prosecution and the prosecution got a better shake than the defense in the court's decisions to withhold stuff from the jury.
Do you disagree? Ataturk and H_B please way in.
The character stuff wasn't admitted as character evidence per se, but because it was supposedly relevant to credibility or some other issue. LIke the fact that Z went to an "MMA" gym was relevant because someone described Martin as pounding Zimmerman "MMA style," and he could have been mistaken about who was on top. And Zimmerman's criminal justice education was relevant because he'd said in an interview that he wasn't familiar with Florida's "stand your ground law." The prosecution was allowed to argue the wannabe cop stuff on the theory that it provided evidence of Zimmerman's motive.
These rulings were, frankly, dubious, but were all arguably within the judge's discretion. But, again, the judge wasn't so one-sided in her discretionary rulings. She excluded the prosecution's hack voice experts and allowed the defense to introduce evidence of Martin's drug use. The defense didn't really push too hard to get Martin's dirty character stuff in -- or at least, they recognized that the judge wouldn't allow it and planned their strategy accordingly. The proof was so overwhelmingly in favor of the defense that they were able to get Zimmerman acquitted while leaving St. Skittles's character unmolested.
I say all this with the caveat that I didn't follow the trial that