Last week, The New York Times Magazine published a lengthy feature examining women across the country who are serving long prison sentences after killing or seriously injuring abusive partners. The article focused on Oklahoma’s recently enacted “Survivors’ Act,” a law designed to allow courts to reconsider sentences in cases where long-term domestic abuse was a substantial contributing factor to the crime. The stories reminded me about some of my recent participatory defense cases.
The story highlights something lawyers, judges, and juries have wrestled with for decades: traditional self-defense law does not always fit neatly with the lived reality of coercive control, repeated violence, stalking, strangulation, and sexual assault. Survivors who use force often do so in circumstances that look different from the classic, split-second “bar fight” scenario that self-defense statutes were originally built around.
Although Washington does not have a statute like Oklahoma’s Survivors’ Act, these issues arise regularly in serious felony cases here. Over the course of my practice, I have represented multiple women charged with serious violent offenses arising out of abusive relationships — including homicide and first-degree assault cases tried in both state and federal court.
These cases are legally complex, fact-intensive, and emotionally charged. They require careful trial preparation, strategic use of expert testimony, and a clear understanding of how juries evaluate claims of self-defense in the context of domestic violence.
The Legal Gap Between “Imminent Threat” and Ongoing Abuse
Under Washington law, self-defense is justified when a person reasonably believes they are about to be seriously injured or killed and that force is necessary to prevent that harm. The doctrine centers on immediacy and reasonableness.
But domestic violence often does not present as a single explosive moment. It is frequently a pattern, i.e. escalating threats, isolation, strangulation attempts, sexual violence, stalking, and prior police involvement. Survivors may experience repeated cycles of violence punctuated by short periods of calm. In these cases, jurors are asked to assess not only what happened in the final seconds before force was used, but the entire context of the relationship. That is a far more nuanced inquiry.
The Oklahoma article illustrates how difficult this can be. Some women have secured relief under the new statute. Others, despite documented histories of abuse, have been denied resentencing after aggressive cross-examination and prosecutorial opposition. Courts have struggled with how to weigh trauma evidence, substance use history, mental health records, and credibility issues.
The same dynamics play out in Washington trial courts.
The Trial Reality
Representing a woman charged with killing or seriously injuring an abusive partner is not simply a matter of arguing, “She was abused.” Abuse evidence alone does not automatically satisfy the legal requirements for self-defense.
These cases often involve:
Conflicting witness accounts
Forensic evidence that may appear inconsistent with the client’s memory
Prior statements that prosecutors will scrutinize for inconsistencies
Substance use issues that the State may use to attack credibility
Past protective orders, police reports, and medical records that must be gathered and contextualized
Expert testimony on domestic violence dynamics, coercive control, and trauma
The prosecution’s approach is predictable. They will argue that the defendant was the aggressor. They will point to prior disputes. They may suggest retaliation, jealousy, or drug use as motives. They will emphasize any fact that appears inconsistent with a straightforward claim of immediate danger. Jurors do not receive these cases in a vacuum. They bring their own assumptions about relationships, why someone stays, why someone returns, and what “real” fear looks like.
Trial strategy in these cases requires experience. It requires knowing when to put a client on the stand and when not to. It requires selecting and preparing expert witnesses who can educate without appearing to advocate. It requires anticipating the prosecution’s narrative and addressing it directly rather than hoping jurors will overlook it.
My Experience in Washington Courts
Over the years, I have represented women in Washington charged with serious violent crimes arising out of abusive relationships. These cases have been tried in state court, federal court and tribal courts. Outcomes have included acquittals, hung juries, and negotiated resolutions that avoided the most severe sentencing exposure.
Each case presented different factual and legal challenges. Some involved allegations of long-term physical abuse and threats. Others involved disputes about who initiated the final confrontation. In every instance, the defense required careful development of the relationship history, strategic presentation of corroborating evidence, and rigorous preparation for trial. There is no shortcut in these cases. They are labor-intensive. They require deep familiarity with jury dynamics and courtroom presentation. They require comfort standing in front of a jury defending a client who may already have been portrayed publicly as a villain.
Trauma-Informed, But Legally Grounded
The term “trauma-informed” is often used loosely. In a trial setting, it has a specific meaning.
It means understanding how trauma affects memory recall, affect, and demeanor — and preparing a client accordingly. It means anticipating how a jury may interpret emotional presentation. It means working with qualified experts when appropriate, but ensuring their testimony aligns with the statutory requirements of self-defense.
It does not mean excusing conduct. It does not mean ignoring contradictory evidence. It means presenting a legally coherent defense that acknowledges complexity without surrendering to it.
The Oklahoma cases described in the recent article show how courts are grappling with these same issues. Some judges have credited extensive abuse histories. Others have concluded that while abuse occurred, it was not a substantial contributing factor to the crime. The dividing line is often how clearly the defense connects the pattern of abuse to the defendant’s perception of imminent danger at the moment force was used.
That connection must be established carefully and credibly.
Why This Experience Matters
Serious violent felony charges carry life-altering consequences. When domestic violence is part of the background, the stakes are even higher. These cases often draw media attention. They can become politicized. They can trigger strong reactions in the community.
A lawyer handling such a case must be prepared to:
Conduct a thorough factual investigation
Secure and analyze medical, police, and court records
Consult with qualified forensic and domestic violence experts
Develop a clear, legally grounded theory of defense
Try the case before a jury if necessary
Not every criminal defense attorney has trial experience in this niche. Fewer still have taken multiple such cases through contested hearings or jury trials.
If you or someone you care about is facing serious charges arising out of an abusive relationship, it is critical to speak with a lawyer who understands both the legal doctrine of self-defense and the practical realities of trying these cases. And in these cases, preparation matters most of all.