Uh-oh... this, if true, isn't sounding like a childhood case of "playing doctor & nurse". Zero bearing on Martin case, but now everyone's heard it.
"Witness...." to WHAT?
Nowhere in this story does it even suggest that she has knowledge of the "incident" in question, soooooo, HOW can she be considered a "Witness?"
Keeping Out Prior Bad Acts
http://www.relentlessdefense.com/post-detail.php?id=2299
If you have a criminal record, the prosecutor may try to introduce evidence of your “prior bad acts” in your criminal trial.
This type of evidence is allowed (is “admissible”) only in limited circumstances, but do not expect the judge or the prosecutor to guard your rights in this regard. You need a savvy criminal defense lawyer, who understands the rules of evidence, to prevent prior bad acts evidence from reaching the jury and unfairly influencing the outcome of your trial.
The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible at trial in federal court. Both the federal and the state rules limit the introduction of evidence of a defendant’s “prior bad acts.”
Specifically, a prosecutor may not use this evidence as proof of the defendant’s bad character; or to show the defendant’s propensity for committing the same type of crime; or to prove the likelihood that the defendant committed the particular crime at issue in the trial.
However, the law does allow a prosecutor to introduce evidence of prior bad acts for other purposes, including to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge or identity.
Thus, for example, if a defendant is on trial for bank robbery, the prosecutor may not tell the jury about the defendant’s prior bank robberies if the only reason for doing so is to cast the defendant as a “bank robber” or a “criminal character.”
If, however, all of the bank robberies share the same distinctive modus operandi, then the jury may learn about the past robberies as a means of connecting the defendant to the current robbery.
CONCLUSION: Either the Beeatch DA is the dumbest State's Attorney in FL, OR, she knows that this "alleged molestation" can NOT be introduced and has NO bearing on this case, thus she (and the biased, corrupt Judge) are INTENTIONALLY, "Poisoning" the potential Jury Pool and the well!
a 7 year old George Zimmerman as molester? ridiculous!