MJW wrote:
I don't think the toxicology results will come in if the only relevance is to show TM was impaired. Perhaps they should, but the DCA's have not indicated disfavor with the trial courts excluding 0.21 blood-alcohol levels except when some other relevant factor was shown. In one case it was the defendant testifying he knew the victim to be violent when drunk, which increased his apprehension of the victim. In the other, it was the prosecutor mocking the defendant's qualifications for testifying the victim appeared to be high. The court said the state couldn't withhold the toxicology results, and then use the denial to attack the defendant's testimony. The second case's analysis will, I think, apply if BDLR attempts to use GZ's NEN call comment that TM appeared to on drugs a evidence that GZ incorrectly profiled TM.
It would make absolutely no sense to me if:
1) The state relies on its assertion in the PCA that Zimmerman wrongly profiled Martin
2) The assertion that Zimmerman wrongly profiled Martin is based solely on the recorded NEN call
3) In the recorded NEN call, the "profiling" statement Zimmerman made was that Martin was "just wandering about", and that "he look[ed] like he [was] on drugs or something"
4) Toxicology reports clearly indicate that Martin was under the influence and/or lingering effects of Marijuana at the time of Zimmerman's statement
If the Tox report is excluded, then so must be the State's assertion that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin.
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
