What good are the records if they can’t tell anyone what’s in them?
Whether or not they become public is a matter of what's in them. If they show unprovoked violence, they become public.
Cannot be released to the public, but can be brought up at the trial.
“What good are the records if they can’t tell anyone what’s in them?”
Most of the time, information damaging the victim’s reputation is not admissible. However, if the prosecution tries to portray the victim as a person a sterling character who would not hurt a fly, then they open the door for the defense to rebut - IF the defense has any ammo to use.
At least, that is what I read a few weeks ago on the web. I’m not a lawyer, but it makes sense to me.
So if the DA argues that St Trayvon couldn’t have attacked Z because saints don’t attack people, then the defense could point out information that would indicate their claim was false. And since the DA knows what the defense knows, it means they are not likely to claim Trayvon was a saint, and thus the issue won’t come up in court. That non-lawyer advice is worth what you paid for it.
The records become fair game if the prosecution tries to pretend Martin was a good, upstanding yut. That would ‘open the door’ to the defense entering the records as evidence that he was a rotten little thug, in rebuttal.
This makes the course of the trial a lot more interesting, because the prosecution can only present a “two-dimensional” Martin to the jury. They cannot reference his character at all. Likely they cannot even get the testimony of Martin’s family, because they could ‘open the door’ about his character as well.
Depends on the prosecution’s case. If one of their witness testifies he was a little angel they become admissable on cross. The defense having them keeps the prosecution honest.