Zimmerman Defense Pleading on Trayvon Martin's Marijuana Use

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:24:26 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

George Zimmerman's attorneys have filed a response to the State's motion to exclude evidence of Trayvon Martin's marijuana use. The pleading is available here and includes this information:

From other evidence in the case, it is known that Trayvon Martin brought marijuana with him from South Florida to use while he was in Sanford and that he used it at least one time after arriving in Sanford prior to his death. Trayvon Martin was suspended from school for possessing a baggie containing marijuana residue and was known to smoke n1arijuana with his friends. In George Zimmerman's non-emergency call to the police, he describes the person, later identified as Trayvon Martin, as appearing as though he was "on drugs."

Additionally, on close inspection of Trayvon Martin's physical appearance at the 7-Eleven, where he was recorded on video within an hour of his death, he sways at the counter as if he's under the influence of some substance.

The motion states the defense has deposed the state's toxicologist, Dr. Bruce Goldberger, who testified: [More...]

Dr. Goldberger opined that Trayvon Martin may have used marijuana within a couple of hours of his death or that it could have been longer than that depending on whether Trayvon Martin was a chronic user or an occasional user.

At the deposition, Dr. Goldberger cited research of Dr. Marilyn Huestis, a senior investigator and nationally recognized researcher at the National Institute on Drug Abuse who studies the residual effects of marijuana on cognitive functioning. According to Goldberger,

Dr. Huestis has found that measurable impairment continues for days or weeks in chronic users.

What isn't included in the motion: An allegation that Trayvon obtained marijuana at the 7/11. Months ago, it obtained a subpoena for 7-11's credit card records for Feb. 26, hoping to identify the three persons who made a purchase of blunts right after Martin left the store and before he departed the area. (Video here of credit card purchase and full version with sound showing Trayvon leaving area (11:09 in) here.)

The full 7-11 video of Trayvon inside the 7-11 from multiple angles is here. The defense was trying to determine if the three guys had provided a blunt to Martin (which would explain why he didn't leave the 7-11 area right after his purchase of the skittles and beverage.) The inference would have been that Martin smoked it on his way home (since there is no discovery indicating marijuana was found on his person.) I'm assuming from today's motion that the defense has been unable to establish that connection.

Since O'Mara has now raised the issue of whether Martin was impaired by marijuana at the time of his encounter with Zimmerman, the topic is open for discussion.

< Vermont Governor Signs "Death With Dignity" Law | Jodi Arias Asks Jury to Impose Life Sentence >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Zimmerman Defense Pleading on Trayvon Martin's Marijuana Use | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This is confusing (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by NYShooter on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:24:09 PM EST

Does the defense want to imply that TM was "impaired" by MJ? Even if it was provable that he was, MJ is well known to induce mellowness in its users, certainly not violence. What's the point here?

they aren't claiming marijuana (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:34:58 PM EST

makes one violent. They use the words "impaired judgment." I take that to mean they would argue Martin misperceived George as a threat. According to GZ, all he was doing was walking back to his car when TM confronted him, and then hit him for no reason.


There is also the "profiled" angle (none / 0) (#4)
by cboldt on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:48:35 PM EST

Zimmerman said,on the NEN call, that Martin looked like he was on drugs or something. If there is evidence that gives a reason why Martin might have been moving or acting in a way that "looks like being on drugs or something," that would help the jury reach a finding about Zimmerman's conclusion.


Profiled (none / 0) (#10)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:14:20 PM EST

An issue not mentioned in the defense filing.

Zimmerman said,on the NEN call, that Martin looked like he was on drugs or something.

NEN recording:

This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.

Leaving out one of the alternatives, let alone the first one, isn't just taking out of context. It's a distortion of what was said.


I wonder what "...looks like he's up to no (none / 0) (#11)
by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:16:46 PM EST

good..." actually looks like to Z. I'm eager for that testimony.


Zimmerman . . . (none / 0) (#14)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:27:14 PM EST

. . . explained that, in the NEN call and more fully in the SPD interviews.

I don't think Zimmerman will testify.


Why do you think that? (none / 0) (#15)
by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:30:46 PM EST

: Off Topic (none / 0) (#18)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:57:49 PM EST

A full discussion of this would be off topic. Briefly, I think Zimmerman testifying would harm his case more than help it. I think O'Mara agrees, as he has been careful to shield Zimmerman from cross examination since the first bond hearing. Zimmerman's testimony at that hearing, I think was an experiment, to see how well he would do on the stand.

zimmerman (none / 0) (#22)
by morphic on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:12:33 PM EST

Zimmerman seemed to think that Martin was looking around, in the evening, which is odd, since all the townhouses appear similar, even Brandi Green's, so Martin likely wasn't admiring the architecture.


zimmerman (none / 0) (#27)
by morphic on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:48:54 PM EST

Wasn't Zimmerman on his way to the store. than spotted Martin wandering around? You'd think this could be verified with ping logs, partly by location, and partly by the amount of time it took Martin to return home, but where are the ping logs?


: Ping Logs (none / 0) (#32)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:43:40 PM EST

The defense has ping data. They've mentioned it in their filings.
It's not being released to the public because it is telecommunication, subject to special privacy protection.

oh, o.k. Got it. (none / 0) (#39)
by NYShooter on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:27:29 PM EST

"Impaired judgment" I can see. But, it will be interesting to see how O'Mara uses that in the actions that concluded with a fight and shooting. Of course, we don't know if "O" will even use it come trial time. But, better to have it and not need it than the other way around.


As someone.... (none / 0) (#51)
by MikeB on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:10:16 PM EST

....who spent too many of his younger years baked, there's a very good reason for it - paranoia. I always made the joke that weed should be legalized because you know who the people smoking weed and driving were - they would be the ones doing 10 MPH on the freeway. In terms of this case, that paranoia could have caused TM to overreact to being tailed, followed. or what have you. However, there is a flip side to this - most people who are stoned (from my anecdotal and life experience) are not prone to violence. Face it, how many domestic violence charges are filed as a result of getting high as opposed to drinking? This behavior seems counter to the claim Zimmerman was attacked without provocation. Although I believe Zimmerman acted in self defense regardless of who started it, evidence on THC in TM's bloodstream would steer me towards Zimmerman doing something more aggressive in the confrontation than he has stated.


Yeah, that's been (none / 0) (#52)
by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:33:37 PM EST

pretty much discussed here, and most comments (including mine) say about the same as you just did. But, none of that negates the big advantage O'Mara would have (if it gets in) to simply be able to show that being high means not being 100% in control of your faculties. This trial will be a contest of inches, not of "smoking guns" (no pun intended) and may be just that little snippet of evidence that provides reasonable doubt, thus tipping the verdict to GZ.

I think both sides will grab at anything they can get now.


FYI...(and OT) (none / 0) (#57)
by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:49:41 PM EST

Face it, how many domestic violence charges are filed as a result of getting high as opposed to drinking?

The results are combined, but it is estimated that 61% of DV offenders also have substance abuse problems.

The article you link to, though (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Zorba on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:27:34 PM EST

says nothing about which drugs/substances (other than alcohol) are being abused. Therefore, it seems relatively unhelpful, since we have been talking only about marijuana usage regarding this particular case.


Which is why I said it was combined (none / 0) (#63)
by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:15:10 PM EST

Other parts of the article specifically talk about "alcohol abuse", so it is not a leap to infer they mean drug abuse / drug and alcohol abuse.

: Yes, I realize that (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Zorba on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:27:48 PM EST

But it still says nothing about marijuana use specifically, which is why I find it unhelpful in the context of this case. You cannot tell which non-alcohol drugs they are talking about that are related to domestic violence and battery.

What constitutes "abuse" (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Anne on Thu May 23, 2013 at 06:36:09 AM EST

versus "use?" Is it how often it's indulged in, is it whether the person can "handle" the substance appropriately?

In other words, is smoking marijuana every day, for example, any more - or less - abusive than having a drink or a couple beers or glasses of wine every day?

Or would you consider "abuse" to have an element of addiction? Is marijuana addictive?

The problem I have with what you've cited is that it does not identify the "substances" - other than alcohol - that it claims a high percentage of domestic violence offenders abuse. Since the drug that is the subject of this post is marijuana, and you've given us nothing that connects domestic violence and marijuana, I think you've got something of an apples-and-oranges problem.

I can't say for sure what O'Meara's strategy is here, but it's easy enough to see that the collateral effect of it is to solidify the perception that Trayvon had to be guilty of something if he was smoking weed, right?

I guess we won't ever know if George had had a couple beers before he went out, or what levels of his various medications were in his blood, to be able to question how solid his judgment was that night, since I'm sure he's not going to testify.


Actually (none / 0) (#73)
by jbindc on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:33:40 AM EST

As I said in my original post, and above, my comment was OT to the Trayvon Martin case and only in response to a commenter above who posited the question: "How many domestic violence charges are filed as a result of getting high vs. drinking?" You'll note - the commenter did not refer to marijuana specifically in his question. My response, was that according to those in the know, over 60% involve substance abusers (and, as I also said, the link I provided specifically delineated when they were talking about alcohol alone and combined with other drugs).

And again - it was OT.


: Not to nit-pick, but it was my (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Anne on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:28:40 AM EST

perception that the use of the phrase "getting high" was not meant to be a generic reference to drugs in general, but a specific reference to the use of marijuana.
Perhaps that would have been more clear had the original commenter asked, "(H)ow many domestic violence charges are filed as a result of marijuana use v. alcohol."
But, whatever. I get that you were trying to be responsive - I just didn't think the material cited shed much light on the specifics of violence associated with use of any specific drug or drugs.

mellow (none / 0) (#5)
by Philly on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:09:26 PM EST

A google search reveals plenty of studies claiming that pot use can make people paranoid and irratable, especially during withdrawal.

There's also the notorious bath salts cannibal who turned out to only have pot in his system -just goes to show that there are exceptions to the stereotypical mellow pot user.

In any event, as other folk (and the latest filing) indicate, this looks like ammo to help fight the assertion that "Trayvon was profiled for no reason."

I'm curious about the claims of "swaying" in the 7-11 videos. As I recall, at least some of that was purportedly debunked as simply being due to the poor frame rate.


Trayvon is not on trial for his life (none / 0) (#29)
by Jack203 on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:26:25 PM EST

GZ is.

Many, including you claim that TM was profiled without any evidence that this occurred.

It's corroborating evidence along with the 711 video of TM swaying by the register, that a reasonable person could consider TM was on drugs (he was)
An altered state can help explain TM's bizarre behavior and assault.

: Yeah, Trayvon lost his trial.... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by magster on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:56:13 PM EST

to GZ the judge jury and executioner as so authorized by Florida's law.

paranoia is a side effect of marijuana (none / 0) (#34)
by ding7777 on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:57:53 PM EST

and could possibly explain why TM initiated the confrontation


Legality of Intoxicant Irrelevant (none / 0) (#36)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:05:17 PM EST

Alcohol is legal, but intoxication of a victim with alcohol is pertinent in a self-defense case.


Reefer Madness (none / 0) (#41)
by Jozan on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:45:22 PM EST

ennnh, there's two types of reefer. There's indica which is the "makes you sleepy" kind and there's sativa which is the paranoia inducing type. Sativa can also produce an effect I call "highper" like this one gal I know who would smoke and clean, clean, clean the whole house.

Anyway, I see them bringing it up as in "GZ said TM appeared to be on drugs. Here's some evidence TM may have been on drugs."


Oh, so (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by gbrbsb on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:13:13 PM EST

He had enough time to put his stash in his father house before going back to confront Zimmerman.

And I suppose he didn't drop off the skittles for his half brother and the cold can of iced tea bulging in his pocket in case he needed a break in the middle of the confrontation.

: Exactly (none / 0) (#69)
by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:56:01 PM EST

I don't know any reason to assume Trayvon was in any hurry to give his not-half-brother the candy.
Unburdening himself of the can might not have occurred to him, or might have slipped his mind.

How will Nelson Rule (none / 0) (#1)
by cboldt on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:36:50 PM EST

That's the question I have. The state raised the issue too, in its motion in limine, and IMO, the state's legal authorities are not helpful to its arguments. Plus, some of the arguments are as much nonsense as Crump's inflammatory "The Martin's didn't intend for Trayvon to be killed." Like "no witness has suggested that the ... marijuana ... has any bearing whatsoever on the cause of death."

At any rate, Nelson will be fully informed as she considers the issue of admissibility.

Inferences (none / 0) (#12)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:23:27 PM EST

The inference would have been that Martin smoked it on his way home (since there is no discovery indicating marijuana was found on his person.)

Non sequitur. Martin had plenty time to stash anything he was carrying.

I'm assuming from today's motion that the defense has been unable to establish that connection.

I don't see the logic there either. Martin could have bought a blunt for later use. His buying the blunt wouldn't point to him being intoxicated afterwards. The claim about him swaying points to him being intoxicated before he entered the 7-11.

: The claim about him swaying ... (none / 0) (#71)
by unitron on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:03:56 PM EST

...points to someone having not seen the video played back at one second per second, as many copies did not originally.
Once you see it running smoothly at the proper speed, all that swaying and weaving pretty much vanishes.
I just wonder if the state deliberately gave the defense a faulty copy in the hopes they would argue something the state could shoot down by playing a "good" copy.

I don't recall this ever being discussed - but did (none / 0) (#13)
by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:26:44 PM EST

they do any blood work on Zimmerman to see if he had any drugs or alcohol in his system the evening of the shooting? Serious question.

: Zimmerman's Blood (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:31:16 PM EST

No. That's one of the things the SPD was criticized for, and one of the few criticisms that was factually accurate.

Debatable (none / 0) (#19)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:59:49 PM EST

Some LE professionals have been quoted to the effect that such testing is unusual in homicide cases.

Probable Cause Required (none / 0) (#21)
by Cylinder on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:07:41 PM EST

Florida requires probable cause for toxicology screening in DGUs.

Florida 790.155(1)(a)

Notwithstanding any recognized ability to refuse to submit to the tests provided in s. 790.153, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a firearm used by a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, such person shall submit, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, to a test of his or her blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content thereof or the presence of controlled substances therein. The law enforcement officer may use reasonable force if necessary to require such person to submit to the administration of the blood test. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner.

No-one who had custody of Zimmerman expressed even mere suspicion of impairment - the EMT, the officer who transported Zimmerman, or the detectives that interveiwed him.


Layperson opinion (none / 0) (#28)
by Cylinder on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:50:00 PM EST

I guess I should have disclosed that the above is my layperson opinion on the meaning of the statute. IANAL. YMMV.


Consent? (none / 0) (#31)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:37:55 PM EST

This seems to deal with cases in which consent is refused. Is there any limitation on taking blood when the subject consents?

I think Zimmerman would have consented if asked, since he (imprudently) agreed to everything else. But what's relevant is that he wasn't asked.

: Blood Testing Homicide Suspects (none / 0) (#54)
by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:21:43 PM EST

It occurs to me that maybe homicide detectives don't normally ask a co-operative suspect for a blood test, because the request might alarm the suspect into ceasing co-operation, and maybe lawyering up. Keeping the suspect talking might be a higher priority than a blood test that will be negative more often than not, when there is no other evidence of intoxication.
I don't recall that any critic of the SPD on this point, has presented any evidence that asking for a blood sample in these circumstances is a standard practice.

inquiry (none / 0) (#25)
by operacarla on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:42:30 PM EST

Can someone steer me to the facts that prove Trayvon Martin brought marijuana with him from Miami and that he used some while in Sanford. I have never heard this before. Thanks.

: First mention (none / 0) (#26)
by Cylinder on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:47:04 PM EST

This is the first mention of that fact. I speculate that information was revealed via deposition, which aren't public records. Since no exhibit was filed with the motion, the only evidence of the fact is O'Mara's own assertion.

au contraire (none / 0) (#35)
by ding7777 on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:03:52 PM EST

It says more about the State wanting to suppress TM's usage of an illegal substance

The state, or ANY party ... (none / 0) (#38)
by Yman on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:20:31 PM EST

... will always seek to suppress evidence that it believes is irrelevant and prejudicial - as they should.


very relevant (none / 0) (#46)
by ding7777 on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:05:47 AM EST

If the State tries to argue that when GZ reached for his phone, TM felt threatened enough to defend himself (i.e, sucker punch GZ) then TM's "impaired judgement" becomes very relevant


: Your opinion ... (none / 0) (#48)
by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:43:42 AM EST

... and the position taken by the defense, which is why I said "The state, or ANY party will always seek to suppress evidence that it believes is irrelevant and prejudicial - as they should." It's an issue for the judge to decide and then (possibly) for the jury, in terms of how much weight the evidence should be given.

It's just another thing (none / 0) (#40)
by NYShooter on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:43:11 PM EST

the State is going to have to worry about. Not everyone is familiar with pot use, some might feel like, "drugs are drugs, they're all bad." The State will have to do a good job during Voir Dire to try and preclude that.


Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery (none / 0) (#37)
by Cylinder on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:08:32 PM EST

Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery

Lots of new stuff from Zimmerman.

: W-14 (none / 0) (#66)
by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:09:24 PM EST

Whichever way W-14's testimony goes, they want to be prepared to impeach or corroborate it, maybe some of both.
There are at least two interviews of W-14 on the internet. I don't know which one the defense has in mind, but I would guess the earliest.

To paraphrase Heller... (none / 0) (#47)
by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:42:18 AM EST

Just because you're paranoid (from allegedly smoking a lil' weed) doesn't mean they (Charlie Bronson with a 9mm) isn't out to get you.

I say drop the charges before anymore smearing of the dead occurs...reasonable doubt exists, why add insult to injury.

: They can't. They've committed themselves. (none / 0) (#58)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:23:39 PM EST

As I've said earlier, I think the State's Attorney overcharged, and while I personally believe that the Z-Man is likely guilty of something, that something sure isn't second degree murder. This is a case that probably belongs more in civil court at this point.

I don't believe we have any notion that (none / 0) (#55)
by Cashmere on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:26:57 PM EST

O'Mara will attempt to use this. This is the defense's argument for being "allowed" to use this as the state has requested Martin's toxicology results be supressed.

Defendant's Third Supplemental Discovery (none / 0) (#75)
by Cylinder on Thu May 23, 2013 at 11:45:46 AM EST

Defendant's Third Supplemental Discovery includes Martin's text messages, photos of Martin, RATL incident communications, etc...