17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[yodajazz]

In the trial of George Zimmerman, to me, it was the pre-trial stuff of what was actually allowed as evidence, that made a huge difference. The state was supposed to prove a "depraved mind", as evidence that he could have premeditated his actions. Yet his mental health history was ruled, not admissible, according to my understanding. It was reported that he had been on anti-depressants. And if so, they would have known possible side effects. Seems like much of his history was ruled as in-admissible. This includes accusations of violent behaviors. On job applications these days, they can ask people if they have ever been arrested for any reason in their entire lives. This does not mean that they were tried or convicted. But you could kill someone, and not have to answer that question, in court? Something is wrong with this picture. The dead person had a toxicology report that was mentioned in court. So why not the person who killed him?

[broncofan]

Typically propensity evidence is kept out. There are a complex set of rules for allowing such evidence if and only if the defendant chooses to make his character traits an issue at trial.

But the idea is that just because someone has a history of committing violent acts does not mean they committed the crime at issue. Their history of committing violent crimes is probative (meaning it has a tendency to make a relevant fact more or less likely) but so removed from the specific facts of the case as to be unduly prejudicial. The same would be true about the fact that someone is taking an anti-depressant or has bipolar disorder. In the case of anti-depressants, the evidence would be offered to show that they are taking a medicine whose side effects give them a generally violent disposition. Or they have a condition that makes them predisposed to violence.

Trilisser is talking about questions put to witnesses about anything that bears on their propensity to tell the truth. You can impeach a witness with prior bad acts, but usually only if the court has determined those prior bad acts are being used only to undermine the witness' character for veracity. The judge can still exclude this evidence if it is unduly prejudicial and does not bear strongly on a person's likelihood to be honest.

Further, when such prior bad acts are used to impeach a criminal defendant who has chosen to testify, they are highly scrutinized and frequently excluded because jurors will not use them strictly for their tendency to impeach (that the defendant may be lying) but to decide the merits of the case (that they are in fact guilty).

[broncofan]

This includes accusations of violent behaviors. On job applications these days, they can ask people if they have ever been arrested for any reason in their entire lives.

It does seem counter-intuitive, but if the violent behaviors are too far removed in time and place from the events in question, they are only slightly probative. The problem is that a jury will tend to give them more weight than they deserve. You can provide prior bad acts but usually only if they are not being used to show propensity but rather a signature of the crime. For instance, you were convicted of stabbing someone with a knife that is not widely available and that same knife was used here. Or you were seen stealing a car, and that car was the get-away car in the robbery.

But if you want to say, once a thief, always a thief, courts don't like to admit that evidence. Or once a hothead always a hothead, they are nervous about jurors hearing that evidence and convicting, regardless of the facts that bear on the specific events in question.

Finally, companies are allowed to ask about arrests, but they are opening themselves up for liability if they do. They are much better off asking about convictions, because they can defend themselves better in a disparate impact discrimination suit. That's a longer story, but from an employment law standpoint, companies are moving away from that type of question.

[broncofan]

In the trial of George Zimmerman, to me, it was the pre-trial stuff of what was actually allowed as evidence, that made a huge difference.

Again third post in a row. But let me just say I understand where you're coming from. I'm just telling you the orthodox legal theory. It was one of those cases where you don't have a lot of good testimonial evidence or physical evidence but something about the way things happened bespoke criminality. It makes it very tempting to admit every piece of evidence that could be helpful.

There's no doubt the fact that Zimmerman was involved in other affrays is relevant. But the truth is the risk of allowing it in is probably as great when it's the only lead you have to go on as when there's an abundance of other evidence. It may appeal to the wrong part of the jury's brain and encourage them to stigmatize defendants either for their character traits or previous actions that speak to those character traits.

Imagine you're a criminal defendant who committed a previous assault and now you're on trial for murder and there's not much evidence against you?

What I don't understand is that Zimmerman seemed to put Martin's tendency for violence in issue did he not? The rule is that if the defendant says the victim has a propensity of violence, then propensity evidence directed at him is freely admissible. Maybe his lawyer didn't do that and it was only Fox News that kept harping on Martin's past.

[buttslinger]

Everybodies a Lawyer these days!
Doctors and Politicians hold back the truth, they give the best version of the truth that people might actually believe, it seems to work...
The racists in this country, Zimmerman-style,... make under the median income of 50 grand a year. Sometimes they live in the same neighborhoods and work at the same jobs. They see each other lined up at the 7-11 buying lottery tickets. All the money they make is spent on rent, car payments, insurance, food, etc etc etc. And they blame each other for their sad state because those are the only people they see.

This system works. Western Civilization was built on this system. Even in school the dumb kids are put in classes together, readying them for their careers as janitors and trashmen.

All these people under the median 50 grand a year should belong to the same political party and they all should vote. 51% of the vote elects a guy who will make insurance companies work for the people they insure, make pharmacists look for cures, not patents,
The racists that hate the niggers have to learn that they are the niggers also. Power to the People!!!

[broncofan]

Everybodies a Lawyer these days!

You might be exaggerating.

[buttslinger]

You might be exaggerating.

maybe just a tad.

[Trilisser]

Broncofan:

1. I did not suggest that one cannot ask tough questions on cross. Of course it must be possible to ask e.g. whether the witness benefits financially/whatever by testifying.

2. Regarding "racists" and "anti-racists", my experience has it that the latter folks are far more fanatical in their views. It is also a significant factor how a "racist" is defined as the term has become the number 2 smearing implement (after "anti-Semitist"). For example, is a white guy who does not want unlimited immigration from e.g. Somalia and that that immigration policy should favour peoples from similarish cultures a "racist"? Yet, the same guy would have sex with a pretty Somalian girl in a heartbeat. To "career anti-racists" he is a diehard racist. To me he is not. To me a racist is a person who would refuse to have sex with a person of another race for the reason of the different race. Where I come from, such people are extremely rare.

What is more, those who are not fond of multiculturalism tend to be conservative in their social view overall and one part of that view is respect for the law & order. That is the very opposite of many/most anti-racists (I do not know a single "career anti-racist" who does not lean to left) often having anarchist leanings.

[trish]

Have you never heard conservatives threaten Second Amendment solutions to our immigration problems? Or threaten secession? Have you never read of black men and woman being dragged to death from the backs of pick up trucks?

[broncofan]

Broncofan:
It is also a significant factor how a "racist" is defined as the term has become the number 2 smearing implement (after "anti-Semitist")..

At least we're still number one. I haven't met too many of the anti-racist fanatics you are talking about. Someone who is concerned more about immigrants from one part of the world than another might be motivated by ethnic bias. The history of immigration in the U.S. has been replete with examples of this. From keeping out the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Mexicans there has often been an attempt to demonize several groups of immigrants. Of course, having borders and controlling the immigration process is the prerogative of any country, but the rhetoric utilized in support of that objective is often based on stereotyping and fear-mongering.

I don't know if you just haven't met enough racists or you don't recognize them as such. I've met tons of racists, who upon meeting you for the first time try to recruit you. I've met tons of anti-semites. I met a girl who tried to explain to me that it was irrational for me to be weirded out by the fact that she had a swastika tattoo. I'm not like the racism patrol or something, but I'm surprised you don't think racists feel very strongly about their views. Even if you think anti-racists can be self-righteous, you haven't seen an anti-racist build a gas chamber for the people who disagree with them? Or enslave another group of people in their fight against racism? Yet, in those very examples what do you have except strongly held and irrational views? And you want us to believe that somehow this instinct has been transcended?