WESH talking head suggested it's about whether the door is open for state to go after GZ's character.
On the bar thing, aren't arrests without convictions always inadmissible?
The state has already gone after Zimmerman's character by producing the past calls to NEN, and either side has the right to produce evidence of a person's reputation.
As far as admissibility of prior acts, they are generally inadmissible, even if there was a conviction. Each offense is supposed to stand or fall on its own weight.
I think the state's issue is a discovery violation, based on the fact that the state did not expect this witness to testify as to scream ID. Bernardo mentioned that scream ID did not come up during the state's deposition, as the witness hadn;t heard the 911 call to the extent to be able to talk to it, by the time he was deposed. Now he comes to the stand and testifies about his life experience in scream ID, and applies that life experience to a scream ID task on the 911 call.
The state can ask to have the testimony stricken - and I expect that they will ask for the testimony to be stricken. Although, the state was able to respond to the testimony during cross examination. This could end up like the Serino thing, trying to unring the bell by mentioning it again and telling the jury to disregard what the witness had to say about scream ID.