# Kathy Thomas v. Dorothy Arn

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 9, 1984 · 728 F.2d 813

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471846

## Case

- **Full name:** Kathy THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dorothy ARN, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 9, 1984
- **Citations:** 728 F.2d 813; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24661
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Merritt, Jones, Johnstone
- **Cited by:** 600 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471846

## Opinion text

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the outcome of this case because, as the majority concludes, United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) bars Kathy Thomas’ right to appeal. I write separately to note that if I were to reach the merits of this case I would grant the writ of habeas corpus. In my view, the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony on the “battered wife syndrome” impugned the fundamental fairness of the trial process thereby depriving Thomas of her constitutional right to a fair trial. Mannino v. International Manufacturing Co., 650 F.2d 846 (6th Cir.1981); Bell v. Arn, 536 F.2d 123 (6th Cir.1976). There is sufficient literature which suggests that the public and thus, juries, do not understand the scope of the problem concerning battered women. See, e.g., Report From the Attorney General & Task Force on Domestic Violence (1978). Furthermore, they tend to be unsympathetic toward battered women. They fail to understand, for instance, why battered women do not leave their partners. Ascertaining a battered woman’s state of mind is crucial to a determination of this and other aspects of her behavior. It may bear on the responsibility or lack of it, for her response. In my opinion the expert testimony could have clarified the unique psychological state of mind of the battered woman and should have been admitted by the trial judge. The law cannot be allowed to be mired in antiquated notions about human responses when a body of knowledge is available which is capable of providing insight.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471846. Public record. Not legal advice.