Specifically, the expert's gender as well as the timing of the presentation of the testimony were analyzed in a simulated homicide trial of a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Study participants were 179 (110 female, 69 male) undergraduates recruited from both classes and advertisements posted on a campus in a large metropolitan Canadian city. Participants were presented with an audiotaped summary of the criminal trial. In addition to the basic trial information, participants received additional testimony from a clinical psychologist who taught and counseled in the area of wife abuse. Both the gender of the expert and the timing of the expert's testimony were manipulated. The dependent measures assessed participants' verdict decisions and a variety of judgments about the case. Study findings show that when the expert was female and the testimony was presented prior to the defendant's testimony, jurors' verdicts were more lenient. Moreover, across a range of case judgments, male jurors' perceptions were more favorable to the defendant when the expert was female as opposed to male. On two of the judgments, this latter pattern of results only occurred when the testimony was presented early in the trial. The significance of these findings is discussed. 5 tables and 21 references