I'm not a lawyer, but I still fail to understand how do people conclude that being under a restraining order means "you cannot answer questions or testify in your own defense regarding something". It sounds surreal that a legal system would allow some sort of indefensible situation like that.
I imagine at least one of these scenarios must be true or the law is a special kind of stupid:
- It's simply fine to answer in court to whatever questions you are asked in court
- If a defendant is not allowed to talk about something in court, lawyers are not allowed to ask the defendant questions about it either
- If neither 1 or 2 are automatically true, a defendant can inform all the courts that may be invested in the defendant that a silly catch-22 situation exists and they either agree to grant a special exemption for 1 or 2
@Potentially Criminal can you clarify this? (if you haven't done it several times by now)