Whoa. See what you think about this one.
The popular media might describe the case in a plethora of different ways. Maybe they'd call it a "gay rage" case. Maybe they'd be more accurate and call it a "PTSD" case. Maybe, in a perfect world, we would all concisely (and accurately) describe the opinion as revolving around the degree to which "expert testimony
explaining how [a defendant's] past history of trauma was likely to affect his mental state at the time
of the offense." (Or, to put it a slightly different way -- and in support of a different conclusion -- whether "a mental health expert may [] give
testimony that the defendant did or did not form the mental state required for the crime
charged.")
Either way, it's an interesting case. With interesting facts. And a split between the majority and the dissent.
See which of these two opinions you find more persuasive. The answer's by no means clear-cut. And in the meantime, there are some scintillating -- though depressing -- facts to keep you interested in the outcome.
