Breaking Legal Ground: My Role in the Landmark Catina Curley Case
In 2011, I had the opportunity to serve as the forensic psychology expert in what would become a landmark case in Louisiana law: State v. Catina Curley. This case not only involved a deeply complex psychological profile, but also helped shape jurisprudence around the admissibility of expert testimony in cases involving intimate partner violence (IPV). The Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately issued a pivotal ruling that paved the way for victims of longstanding domestic abuse to present forensic evidence contextualizing their mental state at the time of an alleged offense.
Retrospective Evaluation: A Window Into Mental State
My role was to conduct a retrospective psychological evaluation of Ms. Curley's mental state in the days, weeks, and months leading up to the shooting of her husband, Reynaldo Curley. Because this was not a real-time clinical assessment but a forensic analysis of past psychological functioning, the process required triangulating numerous data points across time and sources.
Corroboration of Abuse: Eight Interviews, Police Reports, and Consistency
Ms. Curley reported experiencing severe and chronic intimate partner violence. This was not a case of unsubstantiated allegation. I reviewed extensive police reports documenting past domestic incidents and personally conducted interviews with eight collateral sources, including eyewitnesses to Mr. Curley’s abusive behavior. These individuals had either witnessed specific incidents of violence or had close knowledge of the relationship dynamic over time.
The consistency of the data was striking. Ms. Curley's narrative remained stable across multiple interviews, and the accounts of several witnesses, some of whom were interviewed more than once, aligned closely with both her report and law enforcement documentation.
Forensic Testing and Findings
To assess the reliability and credibility of the information provided, I administered a comprehensive battery of psychological tests, including instruments designed to detect malingering or exaggeration. My findings were clear:
There was no evidence of malingering. Ms. Curley did not appear to be feigning or exaggerating symptoms to achieve a secondary gain.
Her account was consistent across time and sources. This degree of corroboration lent further validity to her report.
She continued to experience clinically significant symptoms of PTSD at the time of my evaluation, consistent with her reported exposure to intimate partner violence.
These findings allowed me to present an opinion, to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that her mental state had been significantly impacted by prolonged and repeated trauma.
Why This Case Mattered: Legal Precedent for IPV Survivors
The importance of this case extended beyond the courtroom. At the time, Louisiana lacked clear, uniform guidance on how expert testimony about the psychological effects of intimate partner violence could be used in a criminal trial, particularly when the defendant was the reported victim of that violence.
Ultimately, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying that trial courts must allow juries to hear from qualified experts in such cases. This decision helped establish precedent for other survivors of IPV to present evidence about how chronic abuse may affect behavior, decision-making, and perception of threat.
Final Reflections
Serving as the expert in the Catina Curley case remains one of the most meaningful experiences of my career. It exemplifies how forensic psychology can not only inform individual cases but also help shape broader legal standards. This ensures that psychological science is used ethically and effectively to promote justice
