Brief argues that counsel was ineffective and defendant was severely prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present lay and expert evidence on battering, which was necessary to assess self-defense elements and rebut misconceptions about battered women.

Brief argues that court erred by permitting jury to conclude that remaining in abusive relationship was proof that defendant "recklessly placed [herself] in the situation" thereby barring her duress defense.

Brief argues that jury should have been instructed on defense of duress and analyzes admissibility and relevance of battering evidence to battered women’s duress claims.

Counsel's failure to present corroborating witnesses and expert testimony on abuse during sentencing prejudiced the defendant, leading to a death sentence.

Brief argues court erred by limiting battering evidence to diminished capacity, instead of self-defense's objective reasonableness.

Brief on certiorari in alleged “murder for hire” of abusive husband.

Brief argues court wrongly excluded battering expert testimony, which was essential to evaluate defendant's drug-related conduct and abuse history.

Brief argues court erred by declaring mistrial based on battering expert testimony; seeks reversal of double jeopardy denial, arguing testimony was acceptable.

Brief argues court wrongly barred duress instruction due to flawed "recklessly placed" reasoning and excluded battering expert testimony, citing social science.

Q&A guide helps advocate expert witnesses explain trauma and trauma responses in victims of battering and other forms of violence.

Describes how community supervision can decrease safety and increase violence for reentering victims of battering by eliminating or limiting viable options.

Print/text version of a panel interview of formerly incarcerated women regarding their reentry experiences, insights, and suggestions for advocates and practitioners working with reentering survivors.