Unfortunately all this attempt to show how evil Treyvon was is a smoke screen. Unless Jorge knew of bad propensities of Treyvon, and thus bolstered a need to use deadly force in self defense, then Treyvon’s background is irrelevant.
Yes, I know. It makes me sick also. But that is the law.
Not so. If there is evidence that Martin had a reputation for a propensity to violence, unbeknowst to Zimmerman, that can come in. It is referred to as evidence of reputation.
Here is a case that cites the relevant case law, and also illustrates the threshold for sufficiency of the evidence, to find reputation.
Simon v. State, 4D08-2903 (Fl 4th DCA, 2010)
"An exception to the rule that character evidence is inadmissible 'permits an accused to use character evidence to show that the victim of a crime was the aggressor and that the accused acted in self-defense.'" Williams v. State, 982 So. 2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Hedges v. State, 667 So. 2d 420, 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)); see also S: 90.404(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (2009). "Evidence of the victim's reputation is admissible to disclose his or her propensity for violence and the likelihood that the victim was the aggressor." Berrios v. State, 781 So. 2d 455, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
If reputation evidence is offered to show the victim's conduct, the defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation is not necessary.Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1977)
On an earlier thread someone mentioned that this evidence could make it in as rebuttal...if the prosecutors cont the myth TM was “14 and honor student”. Also, this is being revealed for potential jurors
This evidence will keep the prosecutors from making this trial “Zimmerman bad...Trayvon good”. Now..,just have to worry about New Black Panthers intimidating the jury
One of the fundamental things the jury will have to determine is whether it is more plausible that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman without provocation, or that George Zimmerman acted in an unreasonable fashion so as to provoke the attack. The prosecutor is objecting to evidence of Trayvon Martin's character not because it is irrelevant to such determination, but because they know full well that it is very relevant to such determination. For the right to a trial by jury to mean anything, the jury has to be allowed to make the important factual decisions. If Judge Nelson keeps out such evidence, and the state scores a conviction as a result, it will be Judge Nelson, rather than the jury, who really found Zimmerman guilty.
As a further follow-up, if someone claims self-defense, bad propensities by the decedent which were known to the defendant may be less exculpatory than those which were not. A prosecutor could legitimately argue that if the defendant knew the decedent had a reputation for violence, such knowledge could have elevated his fear of the defendant to an unreasonable extent, and caused him to be over-eager to shoot. Indeed, a really nasty prosecutor might allege that the defendant believed that the decedent's reputation would mean he could be killed with impunity. Such an argument would make no sense if the defendant didn't know of the decent's reputation prior to the attack.