[TheCipher]

"Was Trayvon considered a good boy. Was he ever in trouble ? "

Of course the prosecution would object, the judge would sustain the objection, but the question would be in the minds of the jurors "Why did the prosecution object to that question ? "

[Iron Munro]

"Was Trayvon considered a good boy. Was he ever in trouble?"

He was a good boy - loved his mama,
Loved fightin' and Skittles too.
He was a good boy - Like Obama's son.
Loved Beat Downs, hated Crackers too.

[zencycler]

"Was Trayvon considered a good boy. Was he ever in trouble ? " Of course the prosecution would object, the judge would sustain the objection,

Yes they would, and yes, it would be sustained. For MOM to get this in, he has to show that it relates to something which is already in evidence. Thus, he can use the fact that it relates to Rachel's testimony to ask these questions:

"You heard testimony that your son referred to my client as, pardon my language, a creepy-ass cracker. Do you think this was the kind of language he used often, or maybe he was just trying to act tough that night to impress his friend? Has you ever been concerned abut your son acting tough, being aggressive and using language like that?"

I think MOM will be allowed to ask these questions, because it relates to testimony already given about what Trayvon was saying that night just before the encounter. And then, when his mother tries to defend him by saying no to any of these questions, then MOM can bring up all of Trayvon's past to impeach her testimony.