Character Witness for the Victim?
I was on the jury for the trial of a guy who killed a woman in a fatal car accident, and one of the witnesses was the deceased woman's boyfriend. But he didn't know the defendant and wasn't involved in the accident. He just talked about how wonderful the victim was and how much he loved her.
It was very sad, and I feel like a jerk for asking this, but it also felt like blatant emotional manipulation? His testimony solely focused on the character of the victim, but I don't get why that matters in the courtroom and therefore why it was allowed at all. It's not like the defense was trying to blame her for the accident, and even if they were, his testimony was "she was kind to everyone," not "she always drove responsibly."
Shouldn't the jury treat the facts of the case the same whether the victim was someone's amazing girlfriend or a jerk with no friends? Why did they let him take the stand when none of his testimony was relevant?
Edit: This was before he had been found guilty. I don't know what the formal terms are, but the jury was only there to determine guilt, and I guess the judge determined the sentence. We were specifically told not to consider what would happen to the defendant in the case of a guilty verdict.