[[Since the Dearly Departed Martin described his taste for “purple drank, AKA “lean’, his motives for another high will be allowed.]]
It is speculation- You say ‘pattern of previous behavior’- however , talkign about sipping lean doesn’t translate into actually doiong hte act- it hasn’t been established that he had previously done so- Had he been pulled into jail and tested and foudn lean in system, then that is established ‘previous behavior’
*(I have no doubt he was mostl ikely after a high- however- as mentioned, speculation isn’t evidence- I can’t see how it can be allowed-
“Your Honor- The defendent is a known drunk, and there was a bottle of beer foudn at the murder scene, therefore he must have committed them urder’
or
“Your Honor, the deceased did drugs, and he had skittles on him and iced tea, therefore he was goiogn to get high- and in an agitated prehigh state, was prone to attackign innocent civilians’?”
Like I said- Trayvon was a punk- he picked on wrong person and paid dearly for it- however, I can’t see how a judge can allow speculation to go toward show motive- Because the evidence for that is so shallow, his lawyer will jump all over it- stronger evidence needs to be presented-,
Now, perhaps he had already done some lean aND WAS HIGH ALREADY AND WENT TO STORE FOR MORE, BUT TOXICOLOGY REPORTS SHOULD BEAR THAT OUT- but the case has to be tried on established evidences- simply because a man drinks, and a bottle of booze was found at a murder scene does not go toward establishign that the drunk in question must have done the act
” simply because a man drinks, and a bottle of booze was found at a murder scene does not go toward establishign that the drunk in question must have done the act”
The issue is not what Martin did, but possible motives. Motives are up for discovery.