Well besides just reading the articles MysticCat, I also spoke to several friends and associates who are in the legal field. They thought that it could have an impact in court as well.

Well, maybe things are different in Florida -- always a possibility -- but I have some trouble imagining that a judge would let this in.

It will likely have no impact, unless the defense has literally no idea how to pick a jury.

The point that there's a Myspace page? You and I have far different expectations out of articles.

Giving ideas thought is always a good plan.

On a less snarky note, WHAT idea?

While perhaps self-serving:
From Washington Post article:
Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump said Wednesday that prosecutors could use Zimmerman’s MySpace comments against him.
“It’s not just speculation and innuendo. He has a history and a habit of profiling people,” Crump said. “He thinks certain things about certain racial groups.”

A statement posted on a Zimmerman defense site run by O’Mara concedes that the comments “will cast Mr. Zimmerman in a less-than-favorable light” and that they could become evidence in the case. The statement says there will be no comment on the MySpace statements for that reason, but it does confirm that the posts were by Zimmerman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/old-ge...washingtonpost

MC is "in the legal field" as well ... also, when people say things like "are in the legal field" it usually means "they're not lawyers though." Are they? In Florida?

They are and it seems as if both of the attorneys directly involved are of the mind that this could be in play at trial.

No.

First, the attorney for the Martin family is completely uninvolved in the criminal proceedings. That opinion is less than worthless - it's likely intentionally slanted or misleading.

Second, here's the entire context for the defense attorney's statement:

It's a glorified "No Comment" - an easy way to address it without actually addressing it, or tying his client to anything. Don't assume that means it actually will become evidence, or even that O'Mara actually believes it has a significant chance to become evidence.

MC's given us an informed opinion: in most jurisdictions, most judges would find the posts more prejudicial than probative. Likely because, well, they're not at all probative on whether he shot a kid 7 years later, particularly given the decision to avoid Murder 1.

Perhaps self-serving? And, as KSig RC (who, like Kevin, is also "in the legal field") said, not from anyone actually involved in the criminal case.

Aside from general irrelevance to elements of second degree murder, as a general rule evidence of past behavior is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in a manner consistent with that behavior in committing the crime charged. In other words, the fact that someone did something in the past is not evidence that they did it on the occasion for which they're facing charges. Exceptions to that general rule can apply if the evidence serves some other purpose, such as to establish motive or because of real similarity between the past acts and the current one. Without something else, I don't see how evidence of things he said about Mexicans 7 years ago would meet this exception.

Well it would seem fair to say that based on what you all have said or indicated here that unless one of you is directly involved in this case none of your POVs matters all that much either. I will put more faith into what the lawyers directly involved say or do than anyone here. The only POV that does will be the judge's and the jury's when all this comes together. In what will no doubt be two trials-Criminal and Civil.

And I should add that I place more faith in people that I know as family, friends, Brothers or business associates than unknown people in a social media setting.

All I have to add to the previous comments is this: LOL.

Please just drop this. We don't need a Zimmerman news aggregation service here on GC. I am not at all concerned about what Zimmerman may or may not have said 7 years ago. For a variety of reasons, e.g., relevance and difficulty of authentication, this will never make it to the jury.

I frankly doubt this case ever even goes to a jury at this point.

LOL back at you Kevin-As far as I know-no one is forcing you to read this thread. A thread with almost 9,000 views. And a thread that someone else started.

You're cute when you're mad.

CAN I GET A FLOUNCE?!


Plz...