913 F.3d 807
9th Cir.2019Background
- Lopez purchased a handgun using her twin sister’s ID for Hector Karaca, a felon who threatened to harm Lopez and her family if she did not comply.
- Lopez later admitted the purchase but asserted duress at trial; the jury’s sole contested issue was whether duress excused her criminal conduct.
- Lopez proffered Dr. Cheryl Karp to testify about Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS), trauma, hypervigilance, and why abuse survivors may not seek police help; the government moved to exclude.
- The district court excluded the BWS expert, reasoning BWS evidence was incompatible with duress’s objective reasonable-person standard; Lopez testified herself about her abuse and fear but the expert was barred.
- Lopez was convicted on three federal counts and sentenced; on appeal the Ninth Circuit held the categorical exclusion of BWS expert testimony was legal error that prejudiced her defense and vacated the convictions, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BWS expert to support duress | BWS expert would explain why Lopez reasonably feared Karaca and why she didn’t call police; aids jury understanding and credibility | BWS is inherently subjective and seeks to show defendant’s unusual susceptibility, incompatible with objective duress standard | BWS expert testimony is admissible and relevant to duress (to show how a reasonable person in defendant’s situation would perceive danger and opportunities to escape); district court erred in categorical exclusion; conviction vacated and remanded |
| Admissibility of full ATF interview tape (non-hearsay for effect on listener) | The agents’ statements influenced Lopez’s decision to speak in jail; tape shows effect on listener and rebuts fabrication theory | Tape contains extensive hearsay (including Lopez’s own statements) and was offered for truth; court excluded as hearsay | Exclusion affirmed: although some agent statements could be non-hearsay to show effect on Lopez, defendant sought to admit the entire interview (mostly hearsay), and district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 956 F.2d 894 (9th Cir. 1992) (discusses BWS in duress context and limits on subjective-vulnerability evidence)
- United States v. Homick, 964 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1992) (acknowledges battered-woman defense as a form of duress; admissibility depends on case facts)
- United States v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (BWS expert testimony can help jury assess reasonableness in duress and why victims may not seek police help)
- United States v. Willis, 38 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 1994) (held BWS evidence incompatible with objective duress standard)
- United States v. Kuok, 671 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2012) (explains duress elements and considering defendant’s particular circumstances)
- People v. Humphrey, 921 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1996) (BWS admissible in self-defense; expert evidence explains defendant’s perspective without replacing objective standard)
- United States v. Bighead, 128 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1997) (expert testimony can rehabilitate delayed or inconsistent abuse-reporting testimony)