# Excluded Evidence in a Civil Trial \[Zimmerman case\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 30, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953 "2013-07-30T21:42:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/21 "2013-07-31T16:33:26Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > if this is true, it would seem that Zimmerman’s defense could argue that this is relevant, and shows a propensity for violence. Could they subpoena school records on this? Could they call teachers who observed the fights as witnesses? Maybe, yes, yes. There are fairly strict rules about introduction of evidence to show a party’s propensity toward a particular type of action, but they’re relaxed a bit in a civil setting. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/22 "2013-07-31T16:40:40Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > If you try to explain it, however briefly, on the stand, you’ve waived it. Fearing the spectre of **Bricker** , who might note that I have elsewhere not applied this rule as strictly as I suggest here, I’ll note that I would allow in all cases a recap of the fact that one has pled not guilty (or even, that one has done nothing wrong) and that one is acting pursuant to advice of counsel. All of this is endogenous procedural information (the plea, that the party is represented) which the fact-finders would already know. Preambles that seek to introduce new, exogenous, substantive information remains disallowed. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/23 "2013-07-31T17:31:21Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > At the time, Trayvon Martin was suspended from school. Rumors I heard was that it was his 3rd suspension, and that it was for ‘fighting’ (assaulting another student). > > if this is true, it would seem that Zimmerman’s defense could argue that this is relevant, and shows a propensity for violence. Could they subpoena school records on this? Could they call teachers who observed the fights as witnesses? The rumor in Trayvon’s home town is worse than that. He allegedly struck a teacher, than on the way to Sanford, he hit a bus driver, which is why his father had to drive Trayvon the rest of the way to Sanford. If there’s any truth to it, hard to see a civil case. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/24 "2013-07-31T17:48:29Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Fearing the spectre of **Bricker** , who might note that I have elsewhere not applied this rule as strictly as I suggest here, I’ll note that I would allow in all cases a recap of the fact that one has pled not guilty (or even, that one has done nothing wrong) What’s the rationale for allowing “I have done nothing wrong”? Isn’t that testimony specifically about incriminating evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/25 "2013-07-31T17:52:20Z")
He can’t say he’s done nothing wrong, but his counsel can in open and close. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/26 "2013-07-31T17:57:37Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > What’s the rationale for allowing “I have done nothing wrong”? Isn’t that testimony specifically about incriminating evidence? Generally, I consider “I did nothing wrong” to be sufficiently synonymous “I am not guilty” (particularly to non-lawyers, as witnesses and defendants and jurors tend to be) and sufficiently generalized that it does not represent the introduction of any new information for the fact-finder. The defendant has a legal right to plead not guilty, and this statement merely recaps (or anticipates, I guess) that plea. For a non-defendant Fifth-Amendment-claiming witness,\* I think there is greater mischief in too quickly and summarily finding the protection revoked than in allowing a statement strictly limited to “I’ve done nothing wrong and I’m not going to testify, pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights” to go unchallenged. Claims of Fifth Amendment protections should, within reason, not become traps for the unwary. However, this is a very narrow berth. - In particular, I advanced this position in re the IRS employee who said something to the effect of “I’ve done nothing wrong. I haven’t broken the law. I assert my Fifth Amendment rights.” There, I said she did not waive them. Were Zimmerman to say something similar, I would agree no waiver. What is problematic in this instance is mentioning this speculation about “forthcoming unwarranted charges from the DOJ.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/27 "2013-07-31T18:06:59Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > The rumor in Trayvon’s home town is worse than that. He allegedly struck a teacher, than on the way to Sanford, he hit a bus driver, which is why his father had to drive Trayvon the rest of the way to Sanford. If there’s any truth to it, hard to see a civil case. The truth of these rumors is only relevant if they’re allowed into the trial. Personally I think (morally, not legally) stuff of this sort should have been allowed in (as should Zimmerman’s history of violence/confrontations) but it wasn’t. The question here is whether a civil trial would be any different. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/28 "2013-07-31T18:20:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Due to the threat of unwarranted criminal litigation from the federal authorities, my lawyers advise me not to testify.” I am sure his lawyers can come up with a better formulation that still clearly explains the situation. Sounds better than “I’m pleading the Fifth because if I testified about what I did, I’d face criminal charges.” ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/29 "2013-07-31T18:21:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He can’t say he’s done nothing wrong, but his counsel can in open and close. Well, sure; counsel can say all kinds of things, but that isn’t what **Kimmy** meant. I suppose I agree that there isn’t a terribly wide opportunity for abuse if we allow a defendant to say “I didn’t do anything wrong” without finding a waiver, but man am I uncomfortable about it anyway. I suppose this is because I think a jury is pretty likely to ascribe some significant psychological freight to hearing the defendant say it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/30 "2013-07-31T18:25:49Z")
Not really. What else are they expecting him to say, having pled not guilty? 🙂 “Man, I fucked up bad, but I’m innocent!” ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/31 "2013-07-31T19:00:15Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > This is the million dollar question - what does a beefy police-shaped 40-yo white guy with a gun have to say or do to a black 17-year-old to start a major fistfight and such rage that he ends up on the ground and his nose punched in? I think you may have stumbled upon the definitive Martin defence; no _rational_ person would attack anyone as he did, in fact only a demented thug would smash someone’s face, no matter the provocation. So the new narrative for Martin defenders should be that he was handicapped when Zimmerman killed him, because he was a full-blown retard. This plays to the pathos vote, and adds a further poignancy for those who well up every time the word _Skittles_ is mentioned. A tiny black child buying sweeties brutally slain… Maybe he was wistfully looking for his lost tiny three-legged puppy at the time. However it is imperative that you identify this beefy 40-year-old stranger whom he attacked in addition to Zimmerman; who as anyone who has read anything about the case outside their overblown imaginings knows was 28 and at least 4 inches shorter than Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/32 "2013-07-31T19:34:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not really. What else are they expecting him to say, having pled not guilty? 🙂 “Man, I fucked up bad, but I’m innocent!” There’s a reason the jury instructions about a defendant’s failure to testify go on and on about how important it is not to draw inferences about it; that’s exactly the sort of thing they want to draw inferences about. The inference that a defendant is more credible because he stood up there and proclaimed his factual innocence, “facing the music,” when in fact he wasn’t risking anything because he couldn’t be confronted with any facts, is what I’m worried about. They’re not entitled to treat a defendant who pleads the 5th and says “I did nothing wrong!” any differently than a defendant who doesn’t say a friggin’ word… but I’ve talked to juries, man; they will. ---
**Author:** ![RedSwinglineOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/33 "2013-07-31T20:22:01Z")
So suppose Zimmerman does take the stand in a civil trial, and testifies basically the same as his previous statements. What important new evidence can we expect to come as a result of cross examination? I personally am curious as to why he decided to start carrying a gun. If nothing significant happened in his past, I wonder what situation he thought might arise that would require a loaded, ready to fire pistol. I realize no one needs an excuse to carry a gun, but if he claims that he carried it because he was on the neighborhood watch, that would be an indication he did not plan to follow the guidelines set up for neighborhood watches, and that he expected he might get into a confrontation with a “suspicious” person at some point in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/34 "2013-07-31T20:23:34Z")
> [@RedSwinglineOne](#): > > …if he claims that he carried it because he was on the neighborhood watch I don’t expect Zimmerman’s attorneys to be that stupid. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/35 "2013-07-31T22:58:38Z")
> [@RedSwinglineOne](#): > > So suppose Zimmerman does take the stand in a civil trial, and testifies basically the same as his previous statements. What important new evidence can we expect to come as a result of cross examination? > > I personally am curious as to why he decided to start carrying a gun. If nothing significant happened in his past, I wonder what situation he thought might arise that would require a loaded, ready to fire pistol. I realize no one needs an excuse to carry a gun, but if he claims that he carried it because he was on the neighborhood watch, that would be an indication he did not plan to follow the guidelines set up for neighborhood watches, and that he expected he might get into a confrontation with a “suspicious” person at some point in the future. I thought this was common knowledge. Their rationale for carrying a gun was because the Zimmermans claimed Big Boi, the neighborhood pit bull, had menaced Shellie, so when they took walks they both carried handguns. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/36 "2013-08-01T00:31:10Z")
I don’t practice in Florida and never have, but in general the big differences between criminal and civil in a case like this would likely be 1) different standard of proof–family would have to prove that more probably than not Zimmerman was negligent (failed to act as a reasonable person would have) and that his negligent actions more probably than not proximately (foreseeably) caused Martin’s death; and 2) contributory negligence on the part of Martin (or possibly defense that the sole proximate cause was Martin’s conduct rather than Zimmerman’s). The first difference could lead to admission of different evidence; the second to discovery and admitting evidence relating to Martin’s conduct and character–though in my state and many others a judge is unlikely to admit evidence of a person’s past behavior to show what likely happened here. ---
**Author:** ![RedSwinglineOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/37 "2013-08-01T20:10:16Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > I thought this was common knowledge. Their rationale for carrying a gun was because the Zimmermans claimed Big Boi, the neighborhood pit bull, had menaced Shellie, so when they took walks they both carried handguns. Nope, I hadn’t heard that. That’s interesting though because I believe he said he carried the gun everywhere he went except work, and on the night in question he was driving I think to Target. ---
**Author:** ![Mdcastle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@Mdcastle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdcastle)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/38 "2013-08-01T23:20:38Z")
Is it true that Skittles and Iced Tea are mixed together with cough syrup to make a cocktail called “Lean” and that Martin was a known user, or is this just right wing fabrication? I mention it because the prosecution seemed to say “he was just a sweet kid carrying tea and candy”. ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/39 "2013-08-01T23:46:19Z")
There’s apparently a cocktail called Lean or Purple Drank that involves melting a Jolly Rancher in a mix of cough syrup and a lemony carbonated drink like Sprite or 7-Up (kids these days!) No known usage of skittles and Arizona brand watermelon fruit juice cocktail prior to this incident. Seems a bit of a stretch to me. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953/40 "2013-08-02T14:27:20Z")
What **sugaree** said. There’s a reason you only see that nonsense on right-wing blogs: it’s because only people who have no idea what they’re talking about are saying it. You don’t make Purple Drank with Skittles _or_ iced tea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excluded-evidence-in-a-civil-trial-zimmerman-case/664953.md?page=3)