There are times when a victim's/accuser's character is very relevant to a case.  So I would take issue with the idea that it is never okay for a defense attorney to raise character as an issue in a case.

Unfortunately, some lawyers attack character when it is not relevant, but that's not what is supposed to happen.  

Its up to the judge to decide when character evidence is admissible and when it is not.  Rules of admissibility can be complicated.  What I mean by that is that a piece of evidence may be admissible for one purpose, but not admissible for another. Often attorneys will try to get a piece of evidence in by mischaracterizing the purpose for which the evidence is being presented.  A judge will do his/her best to filter out evidence that should not be admissible, but criminal defense lawyers are given extra latitude, because as mentioned, the defendant is presumed innocent, and the system is designed to protect his/her rights.

On top of that, some judges are just better than others, and some judges are not very good at all.  

You're right that in some cases a victim or the family of a victim may feel victimized again by having their character unjustly scrutinized in a trial.  But the goal is for that not to happen unless there is a good reason for it.  

Of course, there are thousands of cases that come before courts in the US every day.  Most judges I have seen do a pretty good job controlling what is seen by jurors, but the system is imperfect, because the people participating in it are imperfect.  

In the Trayvon Martin case, I don't think that character evidence put on by the defense played any role in the verdict.  

Likewise, I don't believe it will play a decisive role in the George Floyd case.

On an unrelated note, I'm not sure why you are objecting to the use of medical evidence.  In the Floyd case, I think the medical evidence favors the prosecution.  But suppose it didn't.  What if the evidence showed that Floyd really did die from a drug overdose, as Joe suggested?  Would you still believe that Chauvin is guilty of murder?  Don't you think that is something the jury should be entitled to see and decide?

I understand you want justice for Mr. Floyd.  I do too.  But it seems like you're suggesting that a trial is not necessary at all.  

I think its extremely important that the court system be as consistent as possible.  Just because the prosecution has phenomenal evidence in this case, doesn't mean we get to bend the rules.  Chauvin is still entitled to the same due process that any other defendant would receive.  If we start to bend the rules to get the outcome we want (even when that outcome is morally right) we are opening the door to errors that could result in miscarriages of justice in thousands of cases in the future.    

When this first came up it was because Joe was suggesting the drugs contributed to Mr. Floyd's cause of death.  

If that is an argument being made by the defense, then his drug use would absolutely be relevant to the case.  

It amazes me that the defense is tap dancing through this mine field trying to find some straw to grasp onto. But hey... it's their money for their witnesses and experts, I guess. I don't think Chauvin is gonna have a lot of places to spend money in another few months.

But if the defense wanted to argue drugs were contributory, then obviously it would be relevant to know what drugs were in his system when he died. 

They don't have any choice.  More than 95% of criminal cases are resolved without a trial through a plea bargain.  But if Chauvin won't take a deal, the attorneys have to go to trial and put on the best defense they can.  

Given that the entire incident was captured from multiple angles on video, there are numerous eye witnesses, and experts on department policy and use of force have all lined up against Chauvin, his lawyers don't have much of a case.  Grasping at straws is a good description.   

When I was in school, my eventual law partner and I worked together on some cases for the Innocence Project.  We were supervised by attorneys from the Clark County and Federal Public Defenders' offices, and one of them invited us to observe a murder trial.  

The defendants were 3 young men who shot and killed an older man in order to steal a silver cigar case they saw in his possession.  The incident started in a night club on the top floor of a casino/megaresort, so there were cameras everywhere.  There was clear video footage of the young men following the victim out of the casino, following him as he walked through the garage, and then following his vehicle when he left the resort.  

The victim drove about 3 miles away, and pulled into the drive through of a Jack in the Box.  There, another video camera recorded crystal clear images of the defendants approaching his vehicle, shooting, and robbing the victim, and then leaving in the same vehicle they were seen leaving the casino in.  Later, the victim's property was recovered from the home of one of the defendants, along with the murder weapon.  

By the time opening statements were finished, this case was OVER.  There was no question what had happened, but the attorneys still had to conduct a trial, and put on the best possible defense.  

Since we knew the lead defense attorney from school, we got a lot of background information, including that all of the defense lawyers (they each had their own; only one was a public defender) had counseled the defendants to accept plea bargains, because the evidence against them was so strong, and they would face tougher penalties if they lost at trial, but none of the defendants were willing to listen to their lawyers.

Why do you keep saying YOUR justice system when Canada is built on the same UK common law as the US? Yes, there are differences, but none in the ways you are complaining about.

The defense is doing its job. As long as they don't lie or commit fraud, what else do you want them to do?

Again, Canada's system works the same way. 90% plea deals.

Do I think OJ murdered Nicole? Yes. Do I think the prosecution bungled the case and left too much doubt for the jury? Yes.

Do I think Zimmerman should have gone to jail for killing Trayvon? Yes. Do I think the prosecution proved that it was second degree murder? No.

Too many people, especially POC, are wrongfully incarcerated because jurors have your mentality. They are basing their decisions on emotions and "common sense" instead of what the prosecution actually proved.

Also, get off your fucking high horse. Canada has the same issues with racism and police brutality. You guys are just ignoring it by complaining about the US.

Couldn't agree more.