Jurors' Decisions in Trials of Battered Women Who Kill: The Role of Prior Beliefs and Expert Testimony1

The present research explored the influence of four factors on mock jurors' decisions in a homicide trial involving a battered woman who killed her abusive husband: (a) jurors' preexisting beliefs about wife abuse, (b) the presence of expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome, (c) jurors' beliefs in a just world, and (d) gender. Mock jurors listened to a trial involving a woman who had killed her abuser, which either contained expert testimony or did not, and then rendered various judgments about the case. Results indicated that those individuals who were more informed about the dynamics of abuse and those exposed to the expert testimony, compared to their respective counterparts, were more believing of the battered woman's account of what occurred. In general, weak believers in a just world were more lenient in their judgments, with verdicts of not guilty being associated with weaker beliefs in a just world than guilty verdicts. Weak believers in a just world also felt that the expert testimony applied more to the defendant than did strong believers. Finally, women who were weak believers in a just world were less likely to hold the defendant responsible for the events and to be more informed about the dynamics of abuse following the experiment.     

Battered women in the criminal justice system: An analysis of gender stereotypes

Battered women charged with killing their abusers present a dilemma to the criminal justice system. Myths and stereo-types about women and battered women play a prominent role in the courtroom presentation of both defense and prosecution cases. While the prosecution may attempt to discredit the defendant for not living up to the standard of a ‘good woman’, the defense counters with an equally distorted portrayal of the defendant as ultra-feminine: the passive, helpless victim. Ten court cases of battered women charged with the death of their partners form the basis for a gender analysis of the social construction of the trial setting. This analysis includes the structure of the trial, the language of the trial interchange, the participants in the process, and the role the defendant played in her own defense.     

Preventing the Application of Stereotypic Biases in the Courtroom: The Role of Detailed Testimony1

To determine whether detailed testimony has equivalent effects on judgments of stereotyped and nonstereotyped defendants, subjects read a synopsis of a criminal court case in which the defendant either was a stereotyped offender or was not. Additionally, the degree of detail in the prosecution testimony and defense testimony was varied. Results indicated that defendant stereotypicality had a greater impact under conditions in which witnesses provided equal amounts of detail in their testimony. When witnesses differed in the degree of detail in their testimony, the stereotypicality of the defendant was disregarded and judgments favored the witness who provided greater detail. These findings suggest that stereotype application is not inevitable; rather, stereotypes may bias jurors' decision-making processes when the quality and quantity of the evidence does not easily lead to a confident judgment.     

Forensic evaluations of battered women defendants: Relevant data to be applied to elements of self-defense

There has been no model of the relevant information that forensic experts should collect from battered women defendants for testifying in court in support of self-defense claims. This article proposes such a model, addressing the mental state of battered women at the time they killed their partners. Many killings of partners by battered women should be considered appropriate for self-defense claims, even when the fact situations do not appear to fit “classic” self-defense criteria. Forensic experts have an important role in bringing jurors to an understanding of how many battered womens' actions resulting in the death of a partner actually fit self-defense laws by explaining the fit between the facts of the case and the typical criteria of self-defense.     

Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony

Despite widespread use of mental health testimony in cases where violence risk is at issue, relatively little is known about the impact of such information on juror decision-making. This study addressed the effects of testimony based on three types of risk assessment instrument or method (clinical opinion, actuarial assessment, and ratings of psychopathy) to examine whether they would have differential impact on jurors' perceptions of the defendant. In a mock sexually violent predator civil commitment trial, 172 undergraduates were presented a case summary that included prosecution and defense expert testimony related to violence risk based on one of the three methods noted above. Consistent with earlier research, the hypothesis that a defendant described as a "high risk psychopath" by the prosecution would be judged more severely than a defendant judged as "high risk" based on other evaluation procedures was supported, but only among female jurors. Unlike prior studies, little support was found for the hypothesis that clinical opinion testimony would be more influential than actuarially based testimony for either gender. Mechanisms that may underlie the observed gender differences are discussed, as are the potential implications of these findings for civil commitment proceedings.     

Posttraumatic stress disorder among battered women: analysis of legal implications

The diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has recently been applied to the psychological experiences of victims of intimate violence, including physical and sexual assault. The use of trauma theory to explain battered women's responses to violence has laid a foundation for expert testimony on PTSD, where relevant, within more general testimony concerning partner violence. This article discusses the relevance of the PTSD diagnosis within the legal context for explaining battered women's responses to violence.     

Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert

A study was conducted to assess the impact of court appointed experts on the judgments of mock jurors. A civil proceeding was adopted for the experiment. Mock jurors heard testimony about a plaintiff's injury in an automobile accident. In some conditions, medical testimony for the plaintiff and defendant was provided by experts hired by each side. In other conditions, a medical expert appointed by the court testified in addition to the two adversarial experts. In one of these conditions, the court expert sided with the plaintiff; in another, the expert sided with the defendant. The plaintiff in the case was always an individual. The defendant was sometimes a corporation and sometimes an individual. The results showed that mock jurors sided with the court appointed expert in every condition except when the expert favored a corporate defendant. The results were discussed in terms of heuristic processing of persuasive information.     

The impact of mental health evidence on support for capital punishment: are defendants labeled psychopathic considered more deserving of death?

Controversy surrounds the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (Hare, 1991, 2003) in capital murder cases, where it has been introduced to support prosecution claims that a defendant represents a "continuing threat to society". Although widely presumed to have a prejudicial impact (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2004), little is known about how the lay public reacts to data derived from ostensibly stigmatizing assessment instruments such as the PCL-R. The present study examined the effect of psychopathy data on layperson attitudes by having 203 undergraduates review a capital murder case where the results of the defendant's psychological evaluation were experimentally manipulated. When expert testimony described the defendant as psychopathic, a much larger percentage of participants supported a death sentence (60%) than when testimony indicated that he was psychotic (30%) or not mentally disordered (38%). Interestingly, participant ratings of how psychopathic they perceived the defendant to be--regardless of the testimony condition to which they had been assigned--also predicted support for a death sentence. Given the limited probative value of the PCL-R in capital cases and the prejudicial nature of the effects noted in this study, we recommend that forensic examiners avoid using it in these trials.     

Gender differences in attitudes toward psychopathic sexual offenders

Although a considerable amount of research has been conducted examining the validity of psychopathy as a psychological construct, relatively few studies have focused on the effects of using this disorder in "real-world" settings to influence the attitudes of laypersons who are making life-altering decisions about offenders. This study attempted to replicate and extend earlier findings (Guy & Edens, 2003) suggesting that there are gender differences in the impact of expert testimony regarding psychopathy. A sample of 599 undergraduates reviewed case facts regarding a hypothetical Sexually Violent Predator trial in which the type of risk assessment testimony provided (clinical opinion, actuarial scale, psychopathy evaluation) and the age of the victims (adult versus child) were manipulated. Consistent with prior research, despite overall high rates of support for commitment in the adult victim condition, men were less prone than women to support civil commitment when the defendant was described as "a psychopath" (62.5 versus 86.5%). No such gender differences were noted in the clinical opinion or actuarial conditions. When the victims were identified as children, type of testimony had no impact because support for commitment was almost unilateral. Finally, ratings of how psychopathic the defendant was perceived to be (regardless of the testimony provided) were significantly associated with support for commitment across most conditions.     

The impact of expert testimony on trials of battered women who kill their husbands

Increased attention to family violence is reflected, in part, in the growing number of social scientists who have applied the results of their work in trials of battered women who have killed their husbands. Acting as expert witnesses, these individuals detail their knowledge and offer opinions in order to educate jurors about the social and psychological consequences of abuse within marital relationships. Little is known about the actual impact of expert testimony on jury deliberation in cases involving battered women. Those engaged in studying the interface of psychology and criminal justice have relied primarily on anecdotal evidence which suggests that expert testimony shapes jurors' attitudes and their ultimate decisions. (Ellison & Buckhout, 1981). This article summarizes psychological research on how individuals, including battered women, react to victimization and provides a preliminary theoretical formulation of this problem.     

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence,coherence and credentials on juror decision making

Psychological experts have been used increasingly to testify in child sexual abuse cases, yet little research has investigated what specific factors make experts effective. This study examined the potential effects that credentials, evidence strength and coherence may have on juror decision making. Sixty‐four mock jurors read cases of child sexual abuse, followed by experts' testimony and rated guilt of the defendant, effectiveness of the expert testimony and credibility of the victim. Evidence strength and coherence of the testimony affected all dependent variables, and the interaction was significant. Guilt ratings of the defendant were lower and the victim was rated as less credible when both evidence strength and coherence were low. The credentials of the expert, however, had negligible impact. These findings indicate that experts can be effective and impact jurors when testimony is either high in coherence or high in evidence. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Support Person Presence and Child Victim Testimony: Believe it or Not

This study examined the effects of support person presence on participants’ perceptions of an alleged child sexual abuse victim and defendant. Two hundred jury-eligible community members (n = 100 males) viewed a DVD of an 11-year-old girl's simulated courtroom testimony either with or without a female support person seated next to her. Participants found the child victim to be less accurate and trustworthy, and the defendant to be less guilty and less likely to have sexually abused children, when the support person was present. Participants who viewed the female support person (n = 100) believed that she had probably coached and spent a great deal of time with the child victim before testifying. Female participants perceived the child to be more accurate, and the defendant to be more guilty and likely to have sexually abused children, than male participants. The degree to which the child victim's testimonial behavior violated participants’ expectancies mediated the negative relation between support person presence and child victim accuracy and trustworthiness. Support person presence was positively associated with expectancy violation, which in turn was negatively associated with child victim accuracy and trustworthiness. These preliminary findings suggest that seating a support person next to an alleged child victim in court may have the unintended effect of decreasing the child's perceived credibility and, if replicated, suggest that alternative seating arrangements might be necessary. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Clinician testimony in suicide litigation: A cause to be uneasy

This is an illustrative article rather than a research study. We offer opinions and recommendations about what we view as unfortunate clinician testimony in suicide‐related malpractice cases, testimony that – inadvertently or not – supports or encourages inadequate care of suicidal patients. The principles apply to both psychiatrists and non‐psychiatrists, although the former appear more often in our work. We particularly consider the roles and testimony, in court or at deposition, of psychiatrists, whether as defendants, expert witnesses, or fact witnesses. We cite examples of what we view as poor, disingenuous, dishonest and even dangerous testimony that we believe moves the profession toward unsafe patient care. The examples illustrate what we (and sometimes others) describe as normalization of deviance, pre‐suit puffery, self‐serving defendant testimony, expert pride supplanting testimonial responsibility, expert arrogance, expert parroting of attorney suggestions, witness ignorance and avoiding facts, unconscious expert bias, inexperience thwarting justice, misleading use of terms such as “predictability,” and expert witnesses who lack the direct‐care experience that jurisdictions often require in order to opine about defendant clinicians' day‐to‐day patient care. The examples often reveal concerns beyond the category chosen, and should not be expected to convey all of the facts of a particular case.     

Psychological self-defense jury instructions: Influence on verdicts for battered women defendants

Ewing (1987) has proposed a new legal doctrine called ‘Psychological Self-Defense,’ which is intended to provide a legal justification for a killing committed under the threat of extremely serious psychological injury. This study examines the effect of such an affirmative defense on the verdict in two vignette cases in which a battered woman killed her abuser. One-hundred ninety-six subjects issued verdicts after reading the case vignettes and a series of jury instructions which varied by self-defense instruction (Psychological Self-Defense Only, Physical Self-Defense Only, Psychological and Physical Self-Defense, or none of these). Only Psychological Self-Defense instructions significantly influenced verdict patterns, primarily by shifting would-be voluntary manslaughter convictions to acquittals.     

Effects of victim's and defendant's physical attractiveness on subjects' judgments in a rape case

Physical attractiveness of the victim and defendant in a rape case were varied along with sex of subject in a 2×2×2 factorial design. It was found that both the attractive defendant and the rapist of an unattractive victim were less likely to be seen as guilty and that the attractive defendant received a shorter recommended prison term than the unattractive defendant. Victim attractiveness had no effect on attributions of her degree of responsibility. Females were more likely to see the defendant as guilty and recommended longer prison terms than males. Results are discussed in terms of specificity of victim and defendant and the beauty is good stereotype.