Dodge M, Greene E
Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs 80933.
Violence Vict. 1991 Winter;6(4):271-82.
The admissibility of expert testimony at the trial of a battered woman defendant is very controversial. Some courts allow the testimony, others do not. This study focuses on two criteria judges use to determine admissibility and attempts to provide an empirical foundation that can assist their decisions. First, the area of study about which an expert testifies must be shown to be reliable and valid. Second, the subject matter of the testimony must be beyond the ken of the average juror. The first criterion was addressed by assessing the opinions of 45 researchers in the field of spousal violence. The second criterion was examined by evaluating the knowledge of 141 jurors about myths and empirical research findings associated with battered women. Results indicate that researchers showed strong consensus on 14 of 18 issues included in a survey about the reactions of abuse victims, and that compared to these "experts," jurors have limited knowledge on these issues. These results suggest that many of the scientific findings concerning battered women are reliable and that the information is often beyond the ken of the jury. The findings argue for the use of expert testimony in certain cases involving battered women defendants.
受虐妇女被告人审判中专家证言的可采性极具争议。一些法院允许此类证言，另一些则不允许。本研究聚焦于法官用以判定可采性的两条标准，并试图提供一个能辅助其决策的实证基础。其一，专家作证所涉及的研究领域必须证明是可靠且有效的。其二，证言的主题必须超出普通陪审员的认知范围。通过评估45位家庭暴力领域研究人员的意见来探讨第一条标准。通过评估141位陪审员对与受虐妇女相关的错误观念和实证研究结果的了解来考察第二条标准。结果表明，研究人员对一项关于虐待受害者反应的调查中包含的18个问题中的14个达成了强烈共识，并且与这些“专家”相比，陪审员在这些问题上的知识有限。这些结果表明，许多关于受虐妇女的科学发现是可靠的，且这些信息通常超出了陪审团的认知范围。这些发现支持在某些涉及受虐妇女被告人的案件中使用专家证言。
