Calif uses experts to throw men in jail

Ever wonder how a man can get thrown in prison, even though all the witnesses testify at trial that he is innocent? Here is a judgment upholding a 10-year sentence against a man for a domestic violence charge. The alleged victim testified that the man never even threatened her, but the prosecutor relied on a supposed expert named Darr:

Darr testified: Domestic violence victims, after describing the violence to the police, often later repudiate their description. There is typically “anywhere between 24 and 48 hours where victims will be truthful about what occurred because they’re still angry, they’re still scared.” But “after they have had time to think about it . . . it is not uncommon for them to change their mind.” About 80 to 85 percent of victims “actually recant at some point in the process.” Some victims will say they lied to the police; almost all will attempt to minimize their experience.

The only dissenter on the California supreme court was Janice Rogers Brown, whose appointment to the federal court has been held up by Democrats. I guess that I should be glad that she hasn't been confirmed; we need her too badly in California.

Apparently there are legal precedents that say that Battered Women's Syndrome (BWS) is sufficiently out of the ordinary experiences of jurors that they need expert testimony to explain the behavior of a woman with BWS. An expert in another case described BWS as:

a pattern of learned helplessness and dependency, originating in childhood, which, without intervention, is perpetuated throughout the victim’s life that psychologically causes her to return again and again to relationships in which she is battered and abused.

Not only is this nonsense, it doesn't apply to the case at hand because there was no evidence that the alleged victim (and witness) had BWS. There was just a single incident that was rooted in a routine landlord dispute.

I predict that criminal defense lawyers will soon wise up to this scam. Scott Peterson's lawyer (Mark Geragos) could present an expert witness to testify that Amber Frey is lying because she might have BWS.

George writes:

What's wrong with allowing experts? Do you think that all jurors have personal experience with battered women?

No, but jurors don't have personal experiences with bank robbery either.

Having expert testimony on the credibility of other witnesses is just manipulating the jury on whom to believe. It is up to the jury to decide for themselves whom to believe. When Amber Frey or Kate Faber testify, they don't bring in experts to tell the jury when sluts lie. There is no science for reliably determining liars in court. If there were, then maybe we would have to rethink our whole criminal justice system. But there isn't.

It is axiomatic that if the alleged victim testifies that no crime occurred, and there is no other witness or physical evidence, then the defendant should go free. But this poor man will spend ten years in jail for one little harmless heated argument.