If reputation evidence is offered to show the victim's conduct, the defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation is not necessary.Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1977)
Well, we know the prosecution in this case is dumber than dirt so they may just open that line up for examination by accident because no way any prosecutor is going to serve that one up unless they make a huge error. Biggest thing going for Z in this case is his injuries. If he can get that in properly, the self defense defense wins. If they don’t get it in effectively, not so good.
I think this is why they are not using the stand your ground defense. The state has evidence to show that Z was keeping tabs on Saint Treyvon. So, to use that defense could hurt their case of self defense because the state will throw up the image of a guy following St Treyvon because he was black in a SYGD. No way the state can show or prove that Treyvon was threatened by Z causing St Trevon to confront him physically; Z had a legal right to keep him in eye sight; Z is a neighborhood watch guy and lastly he was doing his volunteer job. St Trevyon reacted beyond legal bounds and Z was defending himself, case closed. All IMHO.
Thanks for the authorities. It is a question of state law, rather than clearly USSCt, but these cases are getting some age on them.
If the prosecution is dumb enough to portray Treyvon as a choir boy, then the judge may well allow all the bad stuff to come in.
I am definitely worring about the level of competence of the trial judges down there.
I do have faith in Jorge’s attorney