[T]he state has introduced defendant's statements containing his version of why he reported Martin as suspicious. Zimmerman says it was Martin's actions, not his appearance . The state claims he is lying, that he profiled him because of his appearance, and that he was a wannabe cop who killed Martin not because he had to, but because he wanted to (video of state's opening here.)

The state can't have it both ways. Since it introduced Zimmerman's statements to the dispatcher and Detectives Serino and Singleton into evidence in which he says he was suspicious of Martin was because of his actions, including that he seemed to be on drugs, it can't both assert he is lying and keep evidence from the jury that supports his contentions.

Here is the Arias case I cited (as did the defense and the Judge when she granted the defense motion to admit the toxicology report the next day.) The toxicology findings are here. The amount of Delta-9 THC (the psychoactive component) in Martin's blood, taken hours (if not the next day) after the shooting, was 1.75 ng/ml. The second number refers to Delta-9 Carboxy, or THC-COOH (Carboxy), which is an inactive, non-psychoactive metabolite. Urine tests are indicative only of prior exposure to THC.

Mr. Zorn adds that had he written the first sentence of my post, he would have noted that who attacked who remains disputed. I don't think it is in dispute that Martin attacked Zimmerman -- I think the dispute is over whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to respond to the attack.

As I've written before, Mr. Zorn has written some very insightful columns on this case since the beginning. He clearly has taken the time to review the discovery and follow the proceedings as they have occurred. Recently he wrote a list of 25 and then 5 more things he found significant in the case. While there are several I agree with, there are several I don't, for example the references to Zimmerman's 2005 civil restraining order. But since that hasn't come up at trial yet, I'll save that post for another day.

Back to the marijuana: The primary reason it is coming in is because the state claimed Zimmerman only reported Martin as suspicious because of his appearance, which indicated to Zimmerman that Martin was a criminal and a "punk" -- one of the "as*holes who always get away." The state argues this is sufficient for the jury to reject Zimmerman's self-defense claim, and that it is sufficient evidence of his ill-will, hatred and spite (depraved mind) and convict Zimmerman of second degree murder.

Given that the state has chosen to go down that road, it can't prevent Zimmerman from introducing evidence that contradicts the state's theory and supports his own. Namely, that the first reason he gave to the dispatcher for reporting Martin as suspicious in his call to the police non-emergency number was that Martin appeared to be on drugs or something.

Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

The marijuana in Martin's system, whatever the level, is supportive of Zimmerman's perception that Martin was on drugs, which in turn supports his argument that he reported Martin because of his actions, not his appearance. The jury, which is tasked with deciding whether the state has refuted Zimmerman's theory, is entitled to consider the toxicology findings in deciding whether to credit or discredit the state's theory. As the Arias court held (citing prior cases):

A homicide defendant is afforded wide latitude in the introduction of evidence supporting his self-defense theory. Where there is even the slightest evidence of an overt act by the victim which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining great bodily harm, all doubts as to the admissibility of evidence bearing on his theory of self-defense must be resolved in favor of the accused. The toxicology evidence comes in because it is relevant evidence, and not under any theory of admissibility of character evidence under subparagraph 90.404(1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2007).

The defense also pointed to other evidence of Martin's impairment: It asserts he can be seen swaying in the 7-11 video. And it notes there was a lighter in his pocket when his body was found. (Martin is not known to smoke cigarettes.) In the Warren case, the appeals court ruled a toxicology report showing no cocaine in the decedent's blood, just cocaine metabolites, was admissible in a self-defense case, citing among other reasons, that the decedent had a pipe in his pocket.

So yes, I think the court was right to admit the toxicology report, even though I don't think the levels indicate impairment to a degree that would explain why Martin decided to punch Zimmerman and then hit his head into the concrete.

Some other points of view on the case I'm reading: Law Professor Jack Chin and Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection.