Saturday, January 12, 2013
I wrote Short and Sweet to follow-up on my article yesterday titled, Keep It Simple, Stupid.
The defense in the Trayvon Martin murder case apparently does not have any credible evidence that he was a martial-arts trained aggressive bully who assaulted people. I say “apparently” because I am certain we would have heard about it, given the defense effort to try its case in the court of public where defense counsel can testify with impunity, rumor and innuendo are admissible, and the prosecution cannot cross examine or introduce any evidence. Since evidence that Trayvon was a martial-arts trained aggressive bully who assaulted people would not be difficult to find, if it existed, I believe we can reasonably conclude that such evidence does not exist.
The one thing we do know from reviewing the complaint filed by the security/investigation company against the defendant, his wife and the defendant’s attorney is that its investigators found nothing useful for the defense and could not even confirm a rumor that a client’s daughter could have purchased marijuana from Trayvon.
Instead, the prosecution apparently has a mountain of evidence that Trayvon was peaceful and non-violent.
This evidence is not admissible unless the defense opens the door by claiming that Trayvon was the aggressor and initiated the confrontation by sucker-punching the defendant in the nose, knocking him to the ground.
Difficult to imagine the defense will not make this claim during its opening statement, since this is an important and necessary part of the defendant’s self-defense claim that he provided to the police and to a national audience during the Hannity interview. Therefore, I think we can reasonably assume that the defense will open the door during its opening statement and the prosecution will be introducing evidence of Trayvon’s non-violent and peaceful disposition during its case-in-chief.
On the other side of the coin, the defendant has shown that he has a violent temper and a willingness to assault others when he loses his temper. That uncharged-misconduct evidence is not admissible under rule 404(b), unless the defense opens the door by claiming he is a non-violent and peaceful person or a person with good character.
The defense will make a bad mistake, if it opens this door, but I think they will do it.
Because the defendant still appears to be driving the bus and he is as clueless as clueless gets.
Katie bar the door, if they do.