Katie,
Let's forget the issue of what is and isn't going to get into court. Isn't not wanting to know about the history of both of these people sort of like wanting to bury our heads in the sand? I can't help but wonder if the reason some people don't think TM's school history should come out is they are afraid it might actually paint a picture of TM that fits with what GZ reports happened?
I do understand the attitude that we should "not blame the victim" but this is quite a bit different than a situation for instance where a woman is raped and someone tries to suggest that the number of sex partners she had is relevant (it's not). In this instance, GZ is asserting that he is the victim acting in self-defense and that TM was the attacker. So we actually have two different sides each claiming they are the victim and the other was the attacker.
That said, how relevant all of this past behavior is is impossible to say, and it may also bias us. But as someone who won't be sitting on the jury and doesn't have to worry about that, I'd like to know. Whether I have the legal right to know is another question, so who knows if the school records will ever come out.
I agree that we should not focus merely on admissibility. I tend to overly focus on the legal aspect of things (not that I think you were calling me out or anything). I try not to do that, but it's kind of hopeless. I rationalize it by telling myself that it keeps me out of trouble to stick to what I know something about.
But at the same time, there is a reason certain evidence of the parties' past actions is excluded at trial, and I think it is worth evaluating, in a non-legal context, how good that reason is. After all, one of the chief purposes of the rules of evidence is to make trials more effective at determining the facts. Some rules might seem arbitrary, and some rules admittedly exclude evidence with at least some relevance (and sometimes significant relevance). But there is always a reason, and it always has to do with trying to make sure the jury makes a decision on the proper basis. So while we should consider everything that is relevant when outside of court, considering what would be inadmissible at trial - and, more importantly,
why - can facilitate greater introspection into our reasoning and a more critical analysis of the evidence.
As you point out, knowledge of prior bad acts of a party can bias us (that is, it can affect our conclusions more than, or in ways other than, is logically warranted). We are not a court of law, so there is nothing wrong with examining the past of both parties. But in doing so, we need to keep in mind the very same considerations that determine whether such evidence would get into court. Not
because those are the standards for admissibility in court, but because the standards for admissibility are based on weighing, on the one hand, the strength of the evidence in terms of rational persuasion, and, on the other hand, the tendency of the information to be inflammatory and to influence our opinions unduly.
For instance, if we were talking about past incidents in which Martin started fights or otherwise instigated violence, then that would be so highly relevant that its tendency to create bias would be outweighed. But the possession of a suspected burglary tool, while also tending to create bias against a party by reflecting negatively on general character, does not have much, if any, probative value on the question of whether Martin jumped Zimmerman.
So I agree that we, who are not on the jury, should want all possible facts. Only then can we decide what is relevant, and what is mostly just prejudicial (even if very slightly relevant). Those are judgments that can only made in light of the totality of the circumstances of a given case. But we should approach that task with an awareness of the potential pitfalls.
