Battered woman syndrome testimony in Canada: its development and lingering issues

This article examines the status of battered woman syndrome (BWS) testimony in Canadian courts and assesses the impact of the leading decision, Regina (R.) v. Lavallee. Acknowledging the test of reasonableness in criminal trials was constructed on a male model, the Supreme Court in Lavallee corrected the gendered interpretation of women in abusive relationships by admitting the BWS evidence. Feminist legal scholars questioned whether Lavallee had succeeded in dispelling the stereotypes around battered women. These concerns were partially addressed in R. v. Malott, but some tough issues remain: applying the reasonableness test to women of color and the narrow base of BWS evidence. Some directions are discussed: discarding BWS testimony, framing a redefined and expanded BWS testimony, introducing a new defense based on self-preservation, and adopting an alternative interpretative frame such as "coercive control." The strengthening of BWS testimony would call for the judges' referencing of latest empirical research on battered women.     

Nigeria--Judge denies woman with HIV access to courtroom

In February 2001, a judge in the Ikeja High Court in Nigeria barred an HIV-positive woman from entering her courtroom out of concern for transmission of the virus.     

Battered woman and public opinion: Some realities about the myths

Expert testimony regarding the battered woman syndrome is often presented at trial on behalf of women charged with killing their batterers. Where courts have admitted such testimony into evidence, they have done so on the theory that the testimony is needed to dispel common myths regarding battered women—e.g., erroneous beliefs that battered women are masochists, who are somehow responsible for the battering they suffer and could avoid being battered by simply leaving their batterers. To date, however, there is no published empirical evidence that either jurors or members of the public at large hold such erroneous beliefs. The results of this study provide empirical support for the judicial hypothesis. These results suggest that many members of the general public eligible for jury duty do, in fact, hold erroneous, stereotyped beliefs about battered women.     

The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes

The impact of battered woman syndrome testimony on jury decision processes in trials of battered women who kill their abusers was investigated in two separate studies. It was hypothesized that the presence of the testimony would influence jurors' verdicts via its mediating effect on the jurors' interpretations of the battered woman's beliefs and actions and that its impact would vary as a function of the degree to which it was linked to the woman on trial. In Experiment I, subjects read a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her husband. They received either no expert testimony (control), expert testimony presenting general research findings on the battered woman syndrome (general expert), or expert testimony in which the expert supplemented the general information with an opinion that the defendant fit the syndrome (specific expert). The presence of the specific expert, compared to the control, led to interpretations that were more consistent with the woman's account of what occurred; these interpretations, in turn, were related to more lenient verdicts. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of the testimony on small groups of deliberating jurors. Compared to the control condition, a moderate shift in verdicts from murder to manslaughter was found in both expert conditions. Content analyses of the deliberations, as well as postdeliberation judgments, indicated that the presence of the testimony led to interpretations that were more favorable to the battered woman's claim of self-defense.Preparation of this research, was supported in part by Fellowships from the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Law and Social Science Program of Northwestern University. I. wish to thank Neil Vidmar and James Olson for their invaluable advice throughout all stages of the research, as well as Shari Diamond, Tom Tyler, Richard Lalonde, and Doug McCann for their helpful comments, on earlier drafts of the article. For their diligence and patience in coding the data, I would like to thank Cindi Chandler and Audi Grant.     

Cameras in the courtroom

The present experiment examined some of the key psychological issues associated with electronic media coverage (EMC) of courtroom trials. Undergraduate student subjects served as eitherwitnesses orjurors in one of three types of trials:EMC, in which a video camera was present; conventional media coverage (CMC), in which a journalist was present; or, ano-media control, in which no media representative or equipment was present. Students who served as witnesses first viewed a 5-min videotape of a reenacted armed robbery. Days later, these students testified as witnesses to the crime in front of a jury of peers. Measures assessed the following: witness and juror attitudes toward EMC, witness report and juror perceptions of nervousness and media distraction, juror perceptions of witness testimony, and witnesses' ability to accurately recall aspects of the crime event. Results showed that EMC witnesses and jurors had significantly more favorable attitudes toward EMC than participants in the other two conditions. And, although EMC witnesses and jurors both reported greater witness nervousness, distraction, and awareness than those in the CMC condition, the EMC experience did not impair witnesses' ability to accurately recall the details of the crime or witnesses' ability to communicate effectively. The psychological and legal policy implications of these findings are discussed.     

Postmortem magnetic resonance images of the injured brain: effective evidence in the courtroom.

Magnetic resonance images (MRI) of the whole, formalin-fixed brain produce details of pathologic changes deep within brain substance not apparent on external examination. Photographs of these radiographic images present pathologic features in a black-and-white, 2-dimensional format which has proven particularly effective in court before judge and jury. This pathologist has noted acceptance of such photographs in explaining to jurors the details of his testimony in selected cases where brain trauma resulted in a wrongful death. Penetrating missile wounds and blunt impact injuries are particularly well documented by this method.     

Battered child syndrome in a four year old with previous diagnosis of Reye's syndrome

A 4-year-old Black child was admitted to hospital in coma and with retinal hemorrhages. He was diagnosed as having Reye's Syndrome and remained hospitalized for 1 month. At discharge, he was neurologically compromised with spasticity of the right arm and leg, and could not walk or sit unsupported. Three weeks later he was again seen in the emergency room with a swollen right arm and leg and was subsequently readmitted. Healing fracture of the right femur and probable healing fracture of the right humerus were diagnosed. These were thought to be due to a fall from a stroller. Almost 4 months later, the child died at his home in the care of his mother's boyfriend. Autopsy findings were consistent with a severely chronically battered child.     

The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales

This examination of the extent of the use of neuroscientific evidence in England and Wales identifies 204 reported cases in which such evidence has been used by those accused of criminal offenses during the eight-year period from 2005–12. Based on the number of reported cases found, the use of such evidence appears well established with those accused of criminal offenses utilizing such evidence in approximately 1 per cent of cases in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Neuroscientific evidence is used to quash convictions, to lead to convictions for lesser offenses and to lead to reduced sentences. In addition, cases are identified where neuroscientific evidence is used to avoid extradition, to challenge bail conditions and to resist prosecution appeals against unduly lenient sentences. The range of uses identified is wide: including challenging prosecution evidence as to the cause of death or injury, challenging the credibility of witnesses and arguing that those convicted were unfit to plead, lacked mens rea or were entitled to mental condition defenses. The acceptance of such evidence reflects the willingness of the courts in England and Wales to hear novel scientific argument, where it is valid and directly relevant to the issue(s) to be decided. Indeed, in some of the cases the courts expressed an expectation that structural brain scan evidence should have been presented to support the argument being made.     

Gender bias in courtroom dynamics

Respondents to numerous surveys about courtroom interaction have identified gender bias as a serious problem in the courts. Consistently, women perceive more bias than do men. To explore the importance of gender, role (judge vs. attorney), experience with bias, and age in predicting perceptions of gender bias in the courtroom, we conducted secondary analyses of data from a survey of judges and attorneys in Illinois. Three dimensions of bias were identified:Presence of Bias, Optimism (belief that bias is decreasing), andInstrumental Bias (use of biased behavior as a trial tactic). Although role, age, and experience had some importance in explaining the scores on these three factors, gender offered the greatest predictive power. Implications for future research and for ending bias in courtroom interaction are discussed.This research was completed with support from the Office of Social Science Research, University of Illinois at Chicago.     

Attorney communication and impression making in the courtroom

This study investigated the effectiveness of attorney communication and impression making in the courtroom. Trained in-court observers rated attorney presentations for factual and legal informativeness, organization, articulateness, and rapport during the opening statement phase of 50 trials. After the trials, jurors were asked to evaluate the attorneys' overall articulateness. enthusiasm, and likableness during the trial. The attorneys were then questioned about their own performance on these indices. The results revealed that the opening statements of prosecuting attorneys were judged by observers as better organized and more factually and legally informative than defense attorneys. However, these variables were not related to trial outcome. Juror evaluations of prosecuting attorneys more closely agreed with these attorneys' self-perceptions of courtroom performance while defense attorneys rated themselves significantly more favorably than did jurors. More courtroom experience did not generally lead to better courtroom performance during opening statements for either prosecuting or defense attorneys, and often resulted in significant overestimations of general performance relative to juror evaluations, particularly among defense attorneys. System constraints operating in favor of prosecutors and performance feedback mechanisms available to prosecutors but not to defense attorneys are discussed. These mechanisms may account for the discrepancies between juror perceptions of attorneys and attorney self-perception.     

Use and misuse of epidemiologic data in the courtroom: defining the limits of inferential and particularistic evidence in mass tort litigation

Medical epidemiology is the cornerstone for understanding the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical devices. Epidemiologic principles provide a statistical basis for determining correlations, and ultimately mathematical causation, between two series of events. Medical epidemiologic evidence and statistical inferences are useful and are now routinely accepted in the courtroom. The complex distribution systems that provide fungible goods throughout the country often preclude the identification of the specific source of an allegedly defective product. An expansion of the principles established in Summers v. Tice and Ybarra v. Spangard provide a logical and rational means for the courts to address products liability issues in cases involving multiple and unnamed defendants. This Article discusses the impact of epidemiology on the judicial process, both in the nature of judicial decision-making and in the nature of the law itself. Part III B discusses the "weak" and "strong" versions of the traditional preponderance of the evidence rule, as recast by recent products liability litigation. The remainder of the Article defines the useful and appropriate scope of epidemiologic evidence, concluding that "intentless" epidemiologic evidence alone cannot support an award of punitive damages.     

Wrapped in silence: psychotherapists and confidentiality in the courtroom

The impact of the Austrian Psychotherapy Act, which, in contrast to legal provisions in the United States, does not provide for any exceptions to breach confidentiality, is compared with the effects of U.S. law on dealing with confidentiality. The authors investigated the impact of this law in light of three common situations in psychotherapy that may jeopardize strict confidentiality: treating potentially dangerous patients, giving testimony, and serving as a psychotherapist in prison. Under the strict provisions of the Austrian Psychotherapy Act, a breach may be excusable in the case of a highly probable danger, but Austrian psychotherapists cannot be obliged to serve as witnesses or as experts in civil or criminal cases, as American psychotherapists can. Psychotherapy in prison, where release is contingent on the success of the therapy and the divulging of information could be in the interests of the patient as well as the court and the public, requires a modified dealing with confidentiality.     

The impact of abuse allegations in perceiving parricide in the courtroom

One hundred and seventy five undergraduates (105 females) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a parricide case in which the juvenile defendant alleged sexual abuse or physical abuse or did not allege abuse. An allegation of either type of abuse led to a greater likelihood of a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction and greater pro-child ratings (e.g., sympathy toward the defendant) compared to no abuse allegations. Specific evaluations of the defendant mediated the verdict results. In addition, there was no support for the claim that perceptions are more heinous for sexual abuse than physical abuse allegations and only limited support that perceptions for this type of case result in women being more pro-child defendant than men. The discussion focuses on how abuse allegations impact jurors' decision-making processes in parricide cases.