I’m not saying I’m certain that there aren’t mitigating factors in the mental stability of the defendant.  But we passed laws which protect rape victims from certain defenses.  Obviously accepting a mitigation defense based upon “unwanted sexual advances” allegedly made by the victim is to basically justify the killing of a homosexual.  Period.  We would not accept such a defense from a woman facing unwanted sexual advances from a man, no matter what her sexual preference and no matter how boorish the advances.

Seven jurors were willing to go there.

The abuse from his father should be admissible.  Other factors about his mental stability.  But the victims sexual advances, real or imagined, should not be deemed relevant to any mitigation defense.  My opinion.