I wonder if that would have been considered "opening the door" for MoM to make some references to the fact that the prosecution tried to claim in closing the decedent was of good character, but failed to provide any evidence of his character. Well, aside from the fact that Rachel said he liked fighting, his dad expected to find him in Juvie, and even the prosecutor couldn't say much specific in support of his character aside from the fact that he should be regarded as a hero because he might(*) on one occasion have actually paid for some candy.
(*) The 7-11 video and transaction records do show that he purchased it, but I don't think the prosecution let them in. One thing that really irks me about trials is that a jurors are denied information which would have substantial probative value on the basis that it might be "prejudicial". It's kept out not because it's irrelevant, but because it is relevant, and would let the jury make a well-informed judgment about whether any altercation would more likely have been caused by the decedent or the defendant. To the extent that such information would be prejudicial against people who have a habit of engaging in violent behavior to others, too bad. People who don't want to be judged in such fashion shouldn't behave like thugs.
Now that makes sense since I hadn't watched the trial before that comment.
One thing that really irks me about trials is that a jurors are denied information
Anyone that's been on a trial will agree with you there. One thing, also, the jurist has to live with their decision and if they find out some pertinent info afterwards, it will affect them. More so, a murder trial.