This message was self-deleted by its author

[last1standing]

130. Since you don't appear to have gotten an answer that satisfies you, let me try.

The reason the defense can say in their opening statement that Trayvon Martin punched George Zimmerman is because that is a disputed fact in the case. If you read Article III of the Constitution, you'll find that the courts were created to hear cases and controversies. One of the controversies in this case is whether Martin attacked Zimmerman or visa versa. Therefore it is germane to the defense and so they are able to talk about it in their opening statement, which is dedicated to laying out each side's theory of the case, without objection.

The reason the defense can't use Martin's texts concerning marijuana use is because according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, character evidence may only be used under specific circumstances - usually when one side accuses the other of doing the same type of thing first or when the character evidence has a direct bearing on the immediate case. So long as the prosecution doesn't claim Zimmerman is an illegal drug user, it is unlikely that this evidence against Martin would be useful for any purpose other than to prejudice the jury against him.

There is no "obvious" answer to whether Martin punched Zimmerman because you weren't there and, more importantly, neither were the judge and jury. That is why there is a trial going on. Instead of demanding that you have all the answers, perhaps you can just agree on what has been established: George Martin's gun fired a bullet that killed Trayvon Martin. None of Zimmerman's DNA has been found on Martin. After that, why not let the jury decide based on legal evidence instead of your "gotcha" theories?