a subcategory of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
a clinical diagnostic disorder included in the Diagnos-
tic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV.
Since its inception in the psychological literature in
the late 1970s, psychologists have been asked to pro-
vide expert testimony pertaining to battered woman
syndrome in homicide trials of battered women who
have killed their abusers. As the content of the testi-
mony suggests, battered woman syndrome testimony
speaks of the woman’s mental state and provides a
context for understanding why she perceived herself
to be in imminent danger at the time of the killing.
The courts have also found the expert testimony on
battering and its effects to be relevant to the jurors’
understanding of the seemingly puzzling behavior and
actions of the woman, most notable among these
being why she remained in the relationship.
In contrast to its reception in the courts, within the
psychological and legal communities, the admissibility
of this form of expert testimony has sparked much
debate and controversy. Since its introduction into the
courtroom, some scholars and battered women’s advo-
cates have challenged the validity and applicability of
the syndrome evidence to battered women’s claims of
self-defense. Methodological shortcomings in the
research as well as the theories underlying the syn-
drome evidence have been critiqued by various
researchers and legal scholars. Although numerous
studies have documented the profound impact of batter-
ing and its effects on a woman’s physical and mental
health, there does not appear to be overwhelming sup-
port for a singular profile. As researchers have noted,
the singular portrayal of the battered woman as a pas-
sive and helpless victim conveyed via battered woman
syndrome testimony fails to take into account the vari-
ability in battered women’s reactions and responses and
is at variance with the help-seeking behavior of battered
women. As such, scholars have warned against the dan-
gers of adopting such a restrictive conceptualization of
the responses of battered women.
As early as the mid-1980s, critics of the testimony
voiced the concern that the “syndrome” terminology
was likely to be interpreted by the jurors as an illness or
a clinical disorder. Thus, as opposed to providing a
framework that normalizes the battered woman and her
actions, she is characterized as an “irrational and emo-
tionally damaged” woman. As suggested below, a
review of the empirical research examining the impact
of battered woman syndrome evidence on jurors’ judg-
ments and verdict decisions indicates that there may be
some validity in these concerns.Empirical research on the impact of battered woman
syndrome evidence began in the late 1980s, with much
of this work employing juror simulation techniques.
Using this methodology, mock jurors are presented with
a simulated or mock trial and asked to render a verdict
and provide various judgments about the defendant and
the case. Within the trial presentation, the presence or
absence of the expert testimony is varied, and compar-
isons of the mock jurors’ responses (e.g., judgments,
verdicts) across these different versions of the trial are
made to assess the impact of the testimony. The findings
of this research are somewhat mixed. While some sim-
ulation studies have found little evidence for the impact
of battered woman syndrome evidence, studies con-
ducted by Regina Schuller and her colleagues suggest
that exposure to the testimony does result in more
lenient verdicts and more favorable evaluations of the
defendant. In a series of studies, these researchers found
that compared with mock jurors who were not exposed
to battered woman syndrome evidence, mock jurors
provided with expert testimony pertaining to battered
woman syndrome were more likely to believe the defen-
dant’s claim of self-defense (e.g., perceptions of fear,
few options) and more likely to render a not guilty ver-
dict. Although verdict decisions were more favorable to
the defendant when battered woman syndrome evidence
was presented, there was also evidence consistent with
the notion that battered woman syndrome evidence is
likely to be associated with interpretations of psycho-
logical dysfunction. Lending some support to the con-
cern that battered woman syndrome evidence may lead
to interpretations of dysfunction, mock jurors provided
with the battered woman syndrome evidence, as
opposed to no expert testimony, viewed the woman as
more psychologically unstable and were more likely to
support a plea of insanity.
In response to the criticism that battered woman
syndrome evidence characterizes battered women as
psychologically damaged and fails to capture the vari-
ation in battered women’s experience, Mary Ann
Dutton recommends that the term battered woman
syndromeitself be dropped from the testimony and
reference instead be made to expert testimony on
“battering and its effects.” Moreover, Dutton, one of
the authors of a review of battered woman syndrome
evidence undertaken at the direction of Congress,
notes that the testimony should incorporate the diverse
range of traumatic reactions described in the psycho-
logical literature and should not be limited to an
examination of learned helplessness, PTSD, or any
other single reaction or “profile.”44 ———Battered Woman Syndrome, Testimony onB-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 44