It's a carryover from old English laws that original states are more likely to have because they adopted them then. The laws are usually a non-issue because it doesn't matter and is never brought to light. In states that have repealed it, it's because of someone who's committed heinous acts have had their records wiped clean upon death. In this case, the only reason it's coming up and is an issue is because it could play a massive role in the civil case (which was ruled upon but damages have yet to be set) because all evidence from the criminal trial is no inadmissible. If the damages had already been decided, the law doesn't matter.
Originally Posted by JJBroncoFan
"I never lose, I either win or I learn."