If they can't talk about Trayvon's drug use or his MMA fighting or his assaulting a bus driver or selling pot in school, that's a lot of covering up.   Meanwhile, the whole world knows that Zimmerman had two minor incidents with police. No one saw fit to conceal that information even though Zimmerman is the one on trial.   Trayvon as a deceased individual has no legal right to privacy so I'd like to know why the judge feels compelled to hide his records. (Well, we all know why she's doing that.) it's just for the opening statements.    trayvons past will come up in trial if it becomes relevant, and I'm 100% sure it will since the prosecution knows it can't win this case on the facts of that night alone.    the defense will present the facts of the case, and if the prosecution tries to make it look like zimmerman profiled/followed/attacked/tarnish his character/twist his past/whatever, then they will show what they know about thugvon.     once the prosecution tries to attack zimmermans character and present possible motives, the defense will then present trayvons character and his motives. trayvons character loses hands down though.     that's part of why an all female jury can be such an issue.    if they recognize trayvons character makes him a rotten person, will their motherly instincts kick in and say to them a child shouldn't die no matter what? or something along those lines. after all, trayvons mother KNOWS he is guilty, but she's still fighting for her son not out of justice, but out of revenge. to her SOMEONE must pay for her sons death, even if they were only protecting themselves from her son. that's the line of thinking we're dealing with here when it comes to mothers. you won't find any mothers quick to admit that their child deserved to die, even if they were jack the ripper. so even if they prove trayvon was a rotten kid that liked to beat people up for fun, and that zimmerman was only defending himself fairly, they STILL might have trouble coming to an innocent verdict.    I can see one the the jurors thinking he could have defended himself with anything BUT a gun! he's guilty!. which would be a wrong conclusion of course, since he was pinned down being beaten and had no other choice but to fire.     the truth is, many people would have rather seen zimmerman beaten badly or to death, than to see zimmerman shoot in self defense.     their reasoning can also be well, trayvon MIGHT have killed him, but zimmerman DID kill trayvon, therefore zimmerman is guilty even if he was only defending himself. after all, they did dismiss jurors because they thought killing for ANY reason, was murder, even if only in self defense, even if you might be killed. there's a LOT of idiots out there.