Honesty, when a prosecutor makes his case to the jury he is going to have to prove each element of the offense. The questions you raise are rather indirect if relevant to any of the elements to be proved. The rules of evidence are going to prohibit some of what you complain of, and some others may be admissible. Generally, we try to avoid the inflammatory especially when the wrong caused by it outweighs whatever value it purports to have. In this case, (and to specifically address one of your concerns) without any evidence that amphetamine and barbiturates directly cause violence, (especially with a presumption that a doctor is managing the usage of these drugs) raising such spectres before the jury only hopes to take advantage of any prejudice they might have toward drug use. The rules aren’t perfect, some are roundly criticized, sometimes the practice of them gets intricate and to be honest sometimes puzzling.
But whether he’s got drugs in his system is not an element of battery or murder, nor is it relevant to any element of a defense. If you want laws about beating people up with doctor prescribed drugs in your system, contact your legislators. I’d advise against that one.
The questions you raise, or some of them, are more suited for the judge to consider if he sentences Zimmerman.
However, none of that is really on the O.P. of whether Martin can stand his ground. The Stand Your Ground Law does not make provisions for prior convictions that would have a bearing on the activities permitted. Thus, your concerns are of no concern to the O.P.
It is irrelevant whether your attacker is high, or attacked someone else in the past. You can fight back.
Don’t think I’m saying there are drug crazed loonies out there that become violent at the drop of the hat, or that you can’t take it into account in a matter where someone is behaving threatingly. If you know that your neighbor got in three fights the last time he was up on meth for four days, well, please do consider that if there’s a negative situation going on. But how much will the prosecutor/defense attorney be able to use? A difficult question sometimes. Simpler cases that are more cut and dried are more likely to convict than complex ones.
Even though I tend to like people who smoke pot and dislike those on uppers/downers, I’m not going to pretend that I haven’t seen people get violent on pot. I’ve been around too many gangstas, honey. They usually have some alcohol too, and some cocaine, and can have really bad attitudes. Alcohol and cocaine leave the system relatively quickly.
I’m not going to judge either of these guy’s propensity to violence based on what drugs are in their system; not in this instance.