"What I am getting out of this is that Zimmerman's lawyer wants to use photographs on Martin's phone as evidence from before the incident that Martin deserved to be murdered..." Bobert, I agree with you that Zimmerman's defense should not be allowed to use that information. The judge in the case should not allow it. BUT... look at it this way: who do you think should be in charge of whether evidence is allowable in court or not: people like the prosecution and defense - who have a definite interest in wanting the case to go a certain way - or the judge, who is at least supposed to be impartial? If you want the judge to have this power, then he must be aware of all the evidence, and both defense and prosecution must make whatever evidence they have available to the court. If you don't require both defense & prosecution to turn over all their evidence, then you are leaving the decision in their extremely partial hands (now there's an interesting image!) - and they are much less likely to be impartial than the judge. For example: if you, Bobert, have been charged with running over some poor kittycat, and the prosecution find photos on the kitty's cellphone showing you playing happily with said kitty, do you want them to be the ones who get to decide whether that information is/is not "relevant" enough to be included in the information presented in the trial? Or would you rather have the judge make that call? I have personal experience of police and prosecution working together to withhold evidence (even though that is illegal) which would have proved I was innocent, and I can tell you that letting one side or the other control what evidence comes to light is not the way to go. Make both sides reveal everything they know, and let a (hopefully impartial) judge decide what the jury gets to hear. (Of course, if the judge is not impartial, then there's very little hope for anything resembling a fair trial, but that's not the issue under discussion here...)
|