Which evidence about the shooting of Trayvon Martin could a jury hear?

Dana, Paul, and Harlan think the girlfriend would be able to testify at trial: “She’s certainly a witness because she heard, even though she didn't see,” Harlan wrote. “The testimony will have to overcome hearsay objection, but that should be a very low hurdle.” Erin isn’t so sure, since the girlfriend’s account of what Martin said is hearsay. However, she says, this could come in under the exception to hearsay that allows witnesses to testify about “dying declarations.” For this to work, though, it would have to be clear that Martin was dying before the phone went dead. The bottom line: The prosecutor and the defense would surely fight over whether to admit it at trial. Since Martin cannot speak for himself, as Zimmerman can, I would like to think this testimony would be admitted.

5. The account of Zimmerman’s father, Robert. He says that after Zimmerman called 911 about Martin—calling him a “suspicious guy”—Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and was walking back to his car when Martin appeared and asked him if he “had a problem.” When Zimmerman said no, Martin, according to Zimmerman’s father, said, “ ‘You do now,’ and he punched George in the nose.” (Sorry, but I have to pause in my dutiful legal analysis to point out that this dialogue is too stilted even for a bad movie.) Then, Robert Zimmerman says, Trayvon got on top of Zimmerman and punched and slammed his head into the sidewalk. It was after that, the father explains, that Zimmerman took out his gun, which he thought Martin had seen.

Rachel, Dana, and Paul say this is hearsay and inadmissible. Harlan points out that there are exceptions to the rule against hearsay that could allow Zimmerman’s father to testify: “The present sense impression (given by Zimmerman to his father), or an excited utterance made by Zimmerman.” In other words, a judge could potentially admit Robert’s testimony as evidence of George Zimmerman’s spontaneous impression of the shooting, or as his statement about a startling or shocking event, made in the heat of the moment. I don’t see how this could work for everything Robert Zimmerman has had to say, though, and I’m not sure it works at all.  

6. The witnesses who saw the Martin-Zimmerman struggle. Unnamed witnesses have said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. By contrast, a witness named Mary Cutcher, quoted in the NYT, says she saw Zimmerman straddling Martin.

Yes, the eyewitnesses get to testify.

7. Martin’s suspension from school for having a plastic bag with traces of marijuana in his backpack. No, probably not. Erin and Harlan don’t think this would be admitted—it’s not relevant. It’s evidence that could discredit Martin’s character, but it has nothing to do with whether he hit Zimmerman first. Erin also points out that there is evidence against Zimmerman—his prior arrests for assault—that she says “likely would come in anyway, but would definitely come in if Zimmerman opens the door by introducing the victim's character.” So, it’s likely that Zimmerman’s defense lawyer wouldn’t be eager to raise Martin’s school suspension in the first place.

8. Trayvon’s tweets. No, the tweets, in which Trayvon says various nasty things about women, aren’t admissible because they’re not relevant to what happened the night he was shot.

We could keep this going, of course, as we learn more about Zimmerman’s and Martin’s past. But what I’ve learned from this exercise is that the farther afield we get from the shooting, the less what we learn matters for deciding whether Zimmerman should be arrested, charged, or found guilty. What we need to know is what happened in the moments before and during the shooting. The rest says more about us than it does about the killing of Trayvon Martin, and whether it was a crime.