NCJ Number
225749
Journal
Violence Against Women Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Dated: February 2009 Pages: 186-205
Date Published
February 2009
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This study investigated the impact of varying forms of expert testimony as well as empathy induction attempts on the part of the defense attorney as a means to aid jurors in their understanding of the application of the self-defense doctrine in certain cases.
Abstract
Results indicated that gender, expert testimony, and, to a lesser degree, empathy played a role in juror perceptions of a battered woman who killed her abuser. Women were more likely to rate the defendant as justified, mentally stable, reasonable, credible, and having fewer options available to her than were men. Participants, receiving social agency framework (SAF) expert testimony found the defendant to be less guilty after hearing the testimony than those in the battered woman syndrome (BWS) or control conditions and also rated the defendant as having fewer options available to her and as less typical of a battered woman than did those in other conditions. Participants receiving empathy induction instructions rated the defendant as more mentally stable than did those receiving no instructions. Although the two forms of expert testimony (BWS and SAF) present different theories about the experiences and situations of battered women, they may not be sufficient in aiding jurors to take the perspective of the defendant. Although both experts were found to be credible, the form of expert testimony had an impact on jurors’ perceptions of the defendant. Specifically, SAF appeared to be most influential among male participants. Data were collected from 96 men and 216 women (N=312) who participated as mock jurors and viewed a simulated trial involving a woman charged with the murder of her abusive husband and who entered a plea of not guilty by reason of self-defense. Tables and references