Quote Originally Posted by JJBroncoFan View Post
It was a comment in jest, but to say it has nothing to do with lawyers is not likely. Several articles cite that the law has been debated across the country. Some states apply the law just like Massachusetts, some don't recognize it at all, and some apply it differently. If there is in fact debate about such a law, who would debate it? It seems this was created to protect defendants rights, with little regard to victims rights.
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 In states that have repealed it, it's because of someone who's committed heinous acts have had their records wiped clean upon death.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.