Uh oh, Trayvon's cell phone pictures released.

[FBM]

Sorry, but this is just a quick Devil's Advocate thing. If he had been a white hillbilly and had pics like those (only with a white hand, white people, etc), would you (generic) still jump to his defense? Please be honest. Just asking, not saying.

Quick and out of ignorance.
It's not just the pictures, it is the pictures with the text messages and the now known past history. And of course the forensic evidence.

No, I read and saw all that. That's what motivated me to ask the question. One side wants to paint him up as a misunderstood Boy Scout, the other side wants to make him out to be a hardened, low-life thug. All I see is a kid who wants to be seen as tough, but who is really just a wannabe thug. But whatever, you've got the same sort of spin going on on the other side. The point is that none of these incidental details actually inform us of who attacked whom on that particular night. I don't know, nor do you or anyone else who wasn't there. So what's the point of claiming to know something that is unknown? Just trying to graft the incident into this or that political bias? That's stupid. Wait for the jury to render a decision after having reviewed all the relevant evidence.

[Tero]

The Jodi Arias jury, again?

[Sean Hayden]

At no point thus far has the defendant claimed that he believed the deceased had a gun, let alone that the deceased intended to use it. Ergo, this picture is irrelevant.

The supposed implication is that he liked guns, talked about guns, and has a photograph of someone who may be him holding a gun - therefore he is a violent criminal and probably brought this whole thing on himself.

Utterly stupid.

I don't think it's stupid or necessarily poisoning the well. Doesn't the defense want to show that their client's judgment is sound? What reason did he have to believe he needed to confront the victim in the first place? What sorts of things might help show he was right to do so? Would discovering the victim engaged in criminal activity in the neighborhood say nothing? I think that may be plainly denying reality, and for what reason?

I think the defense has much more difficult problems. But I'm not sure it would be right to just throw out whatever we might learn about the victim that may make the defendant's judgement seem better than the prosecution would like.

Of course I would like this line of reasoning more if there are supporting facts e.g. witnesses saw him committing or attempting to commit a crime etc.

[Cormac]

Sorry, but this is just a quick Devil's Advocate thing. If he had been a white hillbilly and had pics like those (only with a white hand, white people, etc), would you (generic) still jump to his defense? Please be honest. Just asking, not saying.

Quick and out of ignorance.
It's not just the pictures, it is the pictures with the text messages and the now known past history. And of course the forensic evidence.

What forensic evidence?

Past history of what?

Text messages proving what?

Pictures of what?

[Cormac]

At no point thus far has the defendant claimed that he believed the deceased had a gun, let alone that the deceased intended to use it. Ergo, this picture is irrelevant.

The supposed implication is that he liked guns, talked about guns, and has a photograph of someone who may be him holding a gun - therefore he is a violent criminal and probably brought this whole thing on himself.

Utterly stupid.

I don't think it's stupid or necessarily poisoning the well. Doesn't the defense want to show that their client's judgment is sound? What reason did he have to believe he needed to confront the victim in the first place? What sorts of things might help show he was right to do so? Would discovering the victim engaged in criminal activity in the neighborhood say nothing? I think that may be plainly denying reality, and for what reason?

I think the defense has much more difficult problems. But I'm not sure it would be right to just throw out whatever we might learn about the victim that may make the defendant's judgement seem better than the prosecution would like.

Of course I would like this line of reasoning more if there are supporting facts e.g. witnesses saw him committing or attempting to commit a crime etc.

Why is this information coming into the public domain via the media - rather than through the courts?

[Sean Hayden]

The defendant has already been tried in the public eye and been found guilty by many. In fact, couldn't you argue that he is only now facing charges because of the trial in the media he received?

Would it be unwise to ignore that?

[Warren Dew]

Why is this information coming into the public domain via the media - rather than through the courts?

Because the prosecution is arguing that this information should not be available in court, but they have no control over public release.

Seems like it should really be the other way around, but that's how things work here. Personally I think the jury should certainly be allowed to see this information, and judge for themselves whether it's relevant.

[pErvinalia]

At no point thus far has the defendant claimed that he believed the deceased had a gun, let alone that the deceased intended to use it. Ergo, this picture is irrelevant.

The supposed implication is that he liked guns, talked about guns, and has a photograph of someone who may be him holding a gun - therefore he is a violent criminal and probably brought this whole thing on himself.

Utterly stupid.

I don't think it's stupid or necessarily poisoning the well. Doesn't the defense want to show that their client's judgment is sound? What reason did he have to believe he needed to confront the victim in the first place? What sorts of things might help show he was right to do so? Would discovering the victim engaged in criminal activity in the neighborhood say nothing? I think that may be plainly denying reality, and for what reason?

I think the defense has much more difficult problems. But I'm not sure it would be right to just throw out whatever we might learn about the victim that may make the defendant's judgement seem better than the prosecution would like.

Of course I would like this line of reasoning more if there are supporting facts e.g. witnesses saw him committing or attempting to commit a crime etc.

They can bring this up in the court, and those trained to determine what is and isnt' relevant can deal with it. But when it's brought up in the "court of public opinion", that's just bullshit.

[Cormac]

Why is this information coming into the public domain via the media - rather than through the courts?

Because the prosecution is arguing that this information should not be available in court, but they have no control over public release.

Seems like it should really be the other way around, but that's how things work here. Personally I think the jury should certainly be allowed to see this information, and judge for themselves whether it's relevant.

There is a reason courts put limits around admissibility of evidence. In Ireland, this kind of act would result in a declaration of mistrial, and the lawyers involved would definitely face sanction. Any newspaper that ran it could find itself heavily fined, and the editor could find him or herself in front of the judge explaining their actions.

Rightly so. If either side can put information into the public domain without restriction, trials (already fraught with risk of error) become a free for all of spin and PR - witchfinder general stuff.

[Cormac]

Why is this information coming into the public domain via the media - rather than through the courts?

Because the prosecution is arguing that this information should not be available in court, but they have no control over public release.

Seems like it should really be the other way around, but that's how things work here. Personally I think the jury should certainly be allowed to see this information, and judge for themselves whether it's relevant.

Not necessarily. And te movie twelve angry men shows why.

[Cormac]

Just to clarify my position.

This information may or may not be pertinent. The correct approach should be for the two legal teams to present the material to the judge, along with arguments for inclusion or exclusion. The judge should then rule on admissability. If one party feels the decision wrongly prejudices their client, this will be a legal point that may ground an appeal.

But one side leaking it to the media is out of order, and most certainly it is an attempt to unduly influence a trial, and is a usurpation of the jurisdiction of the court.

[FBM]

My interest in this case faded a while back, but wasn't the defendant subjected to a similar sort of public scrutiny? All sorts of accusations made about his character, digging into his family background, etc?

[Warren Dew]

My interest in this case faded a while back, but wasn't the defendant subjected to a similar sort of public scrutiny? All sorts of accusations made about his character, digging into his family background, etc?

Yes. Thus far, the state and the Martin family have done a lot more playing to the press than the defendant has.

[FBM]

Then I don't see where anybody has a legitimate complaint about this news surfacing.

[JimC]

A similar situation in Oz, Britain or NZ may have lead to someone being beaten up. Not nice, but not dead...

I wonder what the difference could be in terms of the US?

It'll come to me sometime...