Juror and Expert Conceptions of Battered Women

Abstract

The admissibility of expert testimony at the trial of a battered woman defendant is very controversial. Some courts allow the testimony, others do not. This study focuses on two criteria judges use to determine admissibility and attempts to provide an empirical foundation that can assist their decisions. First, the area of study about which an expert testifies must be shown to be reliable and valid. Second, the subject matter of the testimony must be beyond the ken of the average juror. The first criterion was addressed by assessing the opinions of 45 researchers in the field of spousal violence. The second criterion was examined by evaluating the knowledge of 141 jurors about myths and empirical research findings associated with battered women. Results indicate that researchers showed strong consensus on 14 of 18 issues included in a survey about the reactions of abuse victims, and that compared to these “experts,” jurors have limited knowledge on these issues. These results suggest that many of the scientific fmdings concerning battered women are reliable and that the information is often beyond the ken of the jury. The fmdings argue for the use of expert testimony in certain cases involving battered woman defendants.