Battered Woman Syndrome

Criminal Defense -- Mental Insanity / Georgia v. Randolph / Fernandez v. California What defenses, if any, were used in these cases? (Georgia v. Randolph) Scott Randolph wanted the cocaine possession thrown out because he said he did not give permission; however Georgia defended the search because the consent of one "joint occupant…who has common authority," is consistent with the Fourth Amendment and with U.S. v. Matlock. However, the High Court ruled that when co-occupants are not in agreement as to letting police search, the search is then illegal.

In the Fernandez v. California case, the High Court argued that if the police were restricted from getting permission from the girlfriend -- and had to ask the suspect to grant a search -- that would "impose unnecessary restrictions on law enforcement." How did these cases impact law enforcement and prosecutors? The decision in Fernandez v. California overturned Georgia v.

Randolph, so basically the way it impacts police is that when one of two or more people that inhabit the premises give consent for police to search, police don't need a search warrant. Prosecutors need to know that just one person living in a house can give permission; hence the 14th Amendment isn't violated. Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision? I certainly do agree with the High Court's ruling.

When one person who is inhabiting a household (even though that person isn't the owner) authorizes police to search (and police have probably cause), asking police to get a warrant would be another bureaucratic procedure which should not be needed. Were these decisions consistent with each other? How does consistency in legal decisions positively or negatively impact law enforcement officers and attorneys? These two court cases were very similar, but they did not have consistent outcomes.

The Fernandez case gave the High Court the chance to, in effect, take a second look at Randolph. So what police (and attorneys) believed they had to obey in Randolph changed with Fernandez. This flip-flop could be seen as a negative impact on law enforcement and attorneys. #2: If you were Lacey's defense attorney, would defenses would you use? If I were Lacey's attorney, I would very carefully research the Battered Woman's Syndrome (BWS) because it certainly appears that she was beaten for a period of five years by her husband.

And then the husband pushed her down the stairs and beats here more after she reaches the bottom of the stairs. The BWS is an "articulation of the basic moral code of our society," according to Mary Helen Wimberly, writing in the American Bar Association website.

She quotes Supreme Court Justice Byron White saying that law is "constantly based on notions of morality," hence, the conduct that should be punished and the conduct that the law tolerates should be based on the fundamental question of what is right and what is wrong. Basically when a woman (a wife or girlfriend) is beaten and battered over and over for years, the courts have accepted that the woman has a right to retaliate in self-defense.

The courts have become "increasingly receptive to expert testimony concerning the [battered woman's] syndrome"; and if the woman can establish that she has been subjected to "the cyclical patterns of physical and psychological abuse," she should therefore have strong justification for taking what self-defense measures that are available to her (Cipparone, 1987).

The way it works in many cases in terms of the battering, according to Cipparone, is the woman is hit or pushed in non-injurious ways with the threat that it will get worse if she doesn't comply with the man's demands. This becomes psychological torture because she knows bigger, more damaging blows are going to be used against her. In time, the only recourse she has (she believes) is to kill him to keep her from ongoing violence.

California law on insanity defense: The law on insanity defense in California does not distinguish between permanent insanity and temporary insanity. What is pertinent in California is what the sanity of the defendant was at the moment of the commission of.