Biggest News aggregator with 200 million news articles | vimarsana.com
>> well, if in fact his history is relevant, if the state makes it such that it's relevant, we have to look at the fact that he was on pot and we know that he had at least enough in his system that the state experts suggest there could have been impairment. there are studies out there that say with young males in particular, pot use or withdrawal from pot use could lead to aggression. these things could become relevant as far as him having a hand on a gun, that could become relevant because as we know, part of the evidence is that he may have seen the gun and even gone for it. so that could become relevant according to how the state presents the case. again, we are going to be reactive, not proactive. you might recall from the hearing today, i was the first one to say judge, let us limit ourselves in opening, because as long as the state is limited and the defense is limited in opening, then the judge gets to decide what's relevant and when it should come in. that's got to be a dynamic decision that's made only as the evidence unfolds. >> one of the crucial things i guess for you guys is going to be the jury selection.