Brief arguing expert testimony on battering was relevant to defendant’s knowledge that pseudoephedrine purchased for co-defendant abuser would be used to make methamphetamine and to her failure to ask him probing questions.

Brief on review to state supreme court argues to affirm reversal of victim-defendant’s murder conviction due to erroneous jury instruction that “imminent harm” meant that such harm will occur “immediately.”

Brief argues that court erred by excluding lay and expert evidence on battering, which was relevant to explain defendant’s conduct and state of mind, including her suicidality, when she shot batterer in hospital.

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.