Making the Argument that Stalking is Gendered

Abstract

This piece discusses the 2003 Oregon court of appeals decision Bryant v. Walker which is the first decision in the nation to expressly apply a reasonable woman perspective to the issue of whether a stalking victim's alarm was reasonable. It also examines what it was like for an academic to file an amicus brief and give her first oral argument. It discusses the importance of recognizing the difference between advocating one's pet theory and making the arguments that are likely to win the approval of the judges. At trial the plaintiff in Bryant was found to have made out her case of stalking but, because she had moved to another city, she chose not to participate in the appeal process. As a result there was no one to argue her side of the case at either the intermediate or supreme court level. To make sure that the legal arguments in support of a gendered perspective and other issues were made, the Supreme Court granted me permission to file an amicus brief and present oral argument on the plaintiff's side. After oral argument the supreme court dismissed the appeal as having been improvidently granted allowing the court of appeals decision to stand. The brief and oral argument to the Oregon Supreme Court are included.