What was the state, who indicted her for 2nd degree murder supposed to question her on?DV is both physical and emotional abuse.
Imo, if the defendant appears to be a DV victim, it is not good for the state.
Defendant’s testimony was painful to watch. Shame on the state for the aggressiveness. Not a good look for the state and it may backfire. If there’s anyone on the jury that can relate to DV then the state lost their case due to lack of evidence. Curious why the state brought this to trial when the evidence not strong. They had nothing so attacked the defendant?
An acquittal, moo.
There is no reason to kill someone, ever. I do not advocate or promote violence. The defendant was wrong to shoot DB and it appeared to be overkill.
DV is horrible for victims and it’s a difficult situation to get yourself out of - it can sometimes take years to remove yourself from dysfunctional home life. One can’t imagine unless it's experienced first hand. jmo
All only an opinion, as always.
I think she got off easy and I was informed here there were topics that couldn't be brought into the trial as evidence by the state.
As we've seen in other cases supporters are known to come to a defendant's defense from the get-go and just on the basis that they share some common denominators with the defendant which I see as quite naive
imo:
Claiming you are a DV victim charged with killing does not give you carte blanche w/o any legal consequences.