Abstract
In the last decade, a majority of courts have accepted the use of expert testimony concerning the battered woman syndrome for a wide variety of purposes, ranging from defense use in homicide cases to government use in domestic abuse prosecutions. Although syndrome proponents view this acceptance as a triumph for female defendants, the authors argue that this widespread acceptance of expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome is severely flawed and fails to meet the United States Supreme Court's test for the admissibility of scientific evidence described in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In addition, the use of syndrome evidence, especially in domestic homicide cases, has devastating consequences for women. Too often, courts in these cases focus more time debating the mental deficiency and relative helplessness of the female defendant than the reasonableness of her actions. The use of syndrome evidence has served only to solidify some of the most archaic and destructive stereotypes about women who kill their batterers. The authors conclude that battered woman syndrome expert testimony will fall into disuse as courts come to appreciate that it lacks virtually any basis in valid science, and proponents come to realize that it is inimical to their political cause.
How to Cite
39 Ariz. L. Rev. 67 (1997)
26
Views
17
Downloads
