I've been out of the loop for awhile, but I took an interest in this case because of the DV expert witness the defense plans to call. To my experienced ear, I foresee questioning will be around reinforcing terms Jodi and here team have been drilling on - especially the "how did that make you feel," and what was her mindset.
So, considering the state of the law 20 years ago:
There is a fundamental difference between the way women tell of their battering experiences and what is permitted under the male- identified rules of evidence. Women tend to tell of the events in question rooted in their context, by weaving a tale of patterns of events and feelings in the context of how they happened. Rules of evidence call for the recitation of discrete events separated from feelings or opinions. Facts out of context may be acceptable, but they do not convey the battered woman's experience. Expert witnesses can tie together what the current evidentiary rules do not allow the defendant to say. Until feminist legal scholars argue for and attain reform in the rules of evidence, a battered woman will be constrained from putting her case in front of the trier of fact.
And the way I see the judge handling this case, I would ask our Legal Eagles here if there has been tremendous changes to the Rules or will the Prosecution manage to hold these experts in check?
Whatda ya think? I truly appreciate reading your informed opinions here. Thanks (and no, I'm not on Jodi's side - she is the perp here).