Jodi has testified to the DV, so there is already evidence of DV before the jury. Now, Jodi is a big old liar, of course, so the jury might choose to disbelieve her. And the expert is going to say (probably) that Jodi's behavior is consistent with that of a victim of DV, and that a reasonable victim of DV would have interpreted Travis's alleged "body slam" on June 4 as requiring a response with deadly force.
The reason for trying to prove this is that Arizona has a special self-defense law for victims of DV. If you are a victim of DV, your response to an attack is judged by how a reasonable victim of DV would react rather than how a reasonable "person" would react.
ONE BIG PROBLEM. JOSE, PLEASE READ THIS. :seeya: Jodi never SAID that she interpreted Travis's attack as requiring a response with deadly force. She said she never intended to shoot him at all, and thought the gun was unloaded! She believed that his actions justified a "scaring him off with a gun he would have known was unloaded" response, not a "shooting him in the head response."
So. If I were the prosecutor, I would object to her testifying to how a reasonable DV victim would respond since Jodi never claimed to have responded that way. Frankly, I would object to her testimony in its entirety as irrelevant, for the same reason.
