12.6.15 Expert Testimony

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by La. C.E. art. 702. That article provides, “[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”1  Expert testimony can be used in a variety of ways in domestic violence cases. Topics for experts might include showing why a victim’s fear is rational by contextualizing the abuse, illuminating the effects of abuse on the victim or family dynamics, explaining the parenting deficits associated with domestic violence perpetrators, explaining the effects of domestic violence on children, explaining why a child might show fear of, or alignment with, an abusive parent, rebutting allegations of parental alienation, or educating the judge about strangulation, lethality, trauma, or memory.

In practice, many judges believe that testimony from experts with medical or doctorate degrees—such as psychiatrists or psychologists—should be given more weight than testimony from experts with less advanced degrees. But few professionals in these fields have received specialized training in intimate partner violence. Licensed clinical social workers and others working directly with survivors often have the most relevant expertise for cases involving intimate partner violence or child abuse, and they can be qualified as experts. The Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act creates standards for demonstrative experience that can help practitioners overcome judicial bias that favors advanced degrees over substantive training and expertise. And in at least one Louisiana case, the defendant raised a Daubert challenge to testimony from a clinical social worker with a specialty in domestic violence intervention and prevention, and the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s admission of the testimony.2

• 1La. C.E. art. 702(A)(1).
• 2McFall v. Armstrong, 14-1041, pp. 10–11 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/13/11), 75 So. 3d 30, 37–38; Duplessy v. Duplessy, 12-69, p. 5 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12), 102 So. 3d 209, 212.