Just throwing this out there and I am in no way a lawyer, jmo. The problem with the abuse issue is that the state was held to a higher set of standards on what could be presented to the jury (rules of evidence?) than what the DT could present. We would have had a completely different outcome if the following had been allowed;
~Clancy Talbot testify to bathroom issue
~Slashed tires and Lisa to testify to what happened in CONTEXT
~Sky Hughes to testify given her concerns and direct conversations with Travis--especially 1) the fake inmateA stalker email, 2) the ENTIRE email that the DT used only part of, 3) inmateA threatening suicide if Travis left her and 4) the refusal of inmateA to leave her house after being told to do so as well as finally kicking inmateA out permanently
~Ex roomate of inmateA testifying that JA had a revolving door of men during the 6 months that they roomed together and then asking inmateA to move out
IIRC it was said that these things were TOO PREJUDICIAL yet inmateA was allowed UNSUPPORTED allegations of physical abuse and pedophilia. So it is my opinion that if a defense is allowed to make claims without evidence, then the state should be allowed to present facts that WITH actual evidence .
With all due respect (and I love our system), this part of our justice system IS BROKEN but not because it isn't good. But because it has not evolved to address the "woe is me" defendant, nor the gender-bias issues that come to bear. Clearly, there are the "woe is me" issue with males but it is the female defendant that we are not equipped to safeguard our legal system from. We live in a world where defendants like inmate Arias exist, this NEW type of female criminal is on the rise over the last decade, they are cunning and exploitive. They will stop at nothing to exploit the rights they are afforded in our justice system with excuses, lies and pretty faces. We have to reform the justice system accordingly.