The first paragraphs referred to a specific case, in which the defendant told her brother about the abuse and then the brother murdered the abuser. About 38 years ago.
She was not allowed to talk about the years of abuse during trial, as that was not relevant to the case.
I haven’t read the case, but I’m just gonna assume that the threats her husband made were relevant.
If the law is just about histories of abuse becoming admissible evidence, I don’t really see a problem with the bill.
The first paragraphs referred to a specific case, in which the defendant told her brother about the abuse and then the brother murdered the abuser. About 38 years ago.
She was not allowed to talk about the years of abuse during trial, as that was not relevant to the case.
I haven’t read the case, but I’m just gonna assume that the threats her husband made were relevant.
If the law is just about histories of abuse becoming admissible evidence, I don’t really see a problem with the bill.
That’s what it’s about.
Similar bills passing in red states just may be a clue…