In addition to the prior motion filed by Bernie De La Rionda to avoid having any key witness testimony absence presented as evidence of poor case construct; BDLR has also filed motions to keep the jury from hearing evidence about the background of Trayvon Martin.
Specifically, the State has filed a protective order to exclude the Trayvon Martin toxicology report;
And another motion to stop the introduction of information about the known background of 17-year-old Trayvon.
Again, both of these motions are predictive in nature seeking to stop the defense from presenting information about Trayvon.
The second motion is slightly more concerning from the aspect of a favorable ruling barring not only what is currently known, but that which might come to be known in the future and fall under the same judicial order.
However, when you consider any motion seeking to quash the potential for information one thing specifically comes to the surface. You do not seek to nullify that which does not exist.
Meaning, by the mere fact the State is presenting this request for advanced judicial intervention, it can be implied the construct to be considered immaterial does factually exist. Obviously the State would not seek to remove things which are not evident – so consequently those things they seek to stop from surfacing are things factually known to exist.