Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Only possible convictions for Zimmerman? Wouldn't that also apply to Martin than also?


It depends on how the information is being used.

As noted above, in a counterclaim against the Martins it is likely that the case theory would be that they were negligent because they allowed their son, whom they knew had a history of bad behavior, out unsupervised. If so, that knowledge would be an element of the case. Therefore, it would be provable...and relevant at trial against the Martins. In fact, Zimmerman might be required to show preexisting knowledge on the part of the Martins.

Conversely, if the counterclaim was against the estate of Trayvon for simple assault then those prior bad acts of Trayvon would be more likely inadmissible as character evidence.

And even if evidence were potentially admissible under relevance, as noted above, it would have to outweigh any undue prejudice.

If something is unfairly prejudicial a court would rule it can't be brought up even under cross examination.

I tend to think evidence of Zimmerman committing assaults would not be considered unduly prejudicial on cross. I tend to think that the sex abuse allegation would be. There's no conviction. It's an old allegation. An accusation of sex abuse is something that tends to enflame the emotions. Therefore, unless there is something more relevant to the case about that allegation than shown in the past, I think it would be suppressed.

And, please, understand: This isn't about liking Zimmerman and not Martin, or vice versa. It's about analyzing the likely theories of each case and how those theories would impact what evidence is or isn't admissible. It's something we do in traffic court.