There should be added to the list of prejudicial words which should not be allowed to be used at trial, “iced tea and skittles” due to that phrase being use as a “racist dog whistle” identified as propaganda associated with the widely publicized false “innocent little boy with iced tea and skittles” narrative, derived from a provably inaccurate description of the evidence found in early police reports. If there is any reference made to the canned soft drink and candy in more than generic terms with regards to either item of evidence, then BOTH items should be indentified precisely as to what those items are. In context with photos found on the phone of the deceased and in context with social media messages, and in context with the toxicology and autopsy results showing use of illegal drugs by deceased, it should also be admissible that the two items purchased constitute 2 of the 3 ingredients for the recipe for sizzurp which was one of the intoxicants described to be of interest and/or used by the deceased, and the two items therefore are associated with potential “off label use” as drug paraphernalia in connection with this particular deceased, as contrasted with what would ordinarily be thought to be the innocuous nature of such items. The nexus is clear that in this particular scenario such evidence suggests that the possession of the particular combination of items by a deceased may reasonably be believed to be associated with illegal drug use as this was not atypical behavior for the deceased, but representative of the use of intoxicants other than marijuana by the deceased. A provably false narrative has been offered about the motivation of the deceased for having gone to 7-11 at halftime of a basketball game to obtain a snack for a younger child, and this is believed to be a calculated misdirection and deception about the more probable nature of such combination of items as were purchased by the deceased. Therefore the “iced tea and skittles” phrase has become a “code language” identified with a manufactured false narrative and should be disallowed by a motion in limine prohibiting the use of such misleading phrase, without a concurrent contextual correction being made along with such mention that the description making use of such language is an incorrect description of the evidence attributable to error in early police reports. This should be done to prevent continued perpetuation of a false narrative and illusion, which was manufactured by interested parties who incorrectly relied upon the accuracy of early police reports which were in error. The error has been so often repeated by news media and other sources that it has become something of an unofficial trademark or watermark for a false narrative which is prejudicial to the accused.