Child abuse and the law II: the radiologist in court and fundamental legal issues

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511862366.037

Chapter 26 - Child abuse and the law II: the radiologist in court and fundamental legal issues

from Section IV - Diagnostic imaging of abuse in societal context

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2015

Martha Coakley

Edited by

Paul K. Kleinman

Show author details

Martha Coakley: Affiliation:
Former Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Paul K. Kleinman: Affiliation:
Children's Hospital Boston

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Forensic evidence, and the opinions radiologists offer based on it, is critical to judges and juries, who must determine what happened and who is responsible in cases of alleged child abuse. A radiologist's expert testimony, for example, may help a fact-finder determine how a child was injured, whether by disease, inflicted injury, or accident. Expert testimony may also help establish when a child was injured, which can narrow the list of potential perpetrators to those who had access to the child.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide some insight into the legal system generally, and to help you understand your role as an expert or fact witness when child abuse issues are adjudicated in court. The chapter will also detail various obstacles testifying experts can expect at trial, including challenges to the reliability of expert medical testimony concerning “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS) or “abusive head trauma” (AHT). I hope the chapter will serve as a primer for the uninitiated and will provide useful additional information for the more experienced.

Civil and criminal legal proceedings: the basics

There are a variety of legal proceedings in various forums for which medical testimony may be useful or required. The primary distinction is between civil and criminal proceedings. Civil cases do not involve criminal penalties. That is, no one will go to jail as a result of a civil lawsuit. Instead, civil proceedings may result in money damages being paid, legal relationships being changed, or legal rights being defined. Criminal cases, on the other hand, may result in the deprivation of the defendant’s liberty. Because the stakes are so much higher in criminal proceedings, they differ from civil proceedings in a variety of ways. For example, prosecutors must prove their cases by a higher standard, and evidence in criminal cases may be subject to closer scrutiny to avoid violating the defendant’s constitutional rights. This section will sketch the basics of civil and criminal proceedings to familiarize testifying experts with the trial process.

Type: Chapter
Information: Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse , pp. 645 - 657

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511862366.037 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Massachusetts General Laws chapter 265, section 26D.

Massachusetts General Laws chapter 265, section 13J.

Massachusetts Criminal Model Jury Instructions § 2.180 (2009 ed.).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.

Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701 and 802.

Fed. R. Evid. 701.

Glicklich v. Spievack, 16 Mass. App. 488, 492–496, 452 N.E. 2d 287, 290–292 (1983).

Haggerty v. McCarthy, 344 Mass. 136, 181 N.E. 2d 562 (1961).

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991).

Commonwealth v. Fappiano, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 1105, 781 N.E.2d 881 (2003).

57 Mass. App. Ct. 1105, 781 N.E.2d 881.

Letch v. Daniels, 401 Mass. 65, 68, 514 N.E. 2d 675–677 (1987).

Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–594 (1993).

290 S.W.3d 59 (Ken. Ct. App 2009).

Martin, 290 S.W.3d at 64.

290 S.W.2d at 69.

Bazelon, E. “Shaken baby syndrome faces new questions in court.” The New York Times (Feb. 2, 2011).

Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S.Ct. 2 (2011) (Edmunds cited in dissenting opinion).

308 Wis.2d 374, 746 N.W.2d 590 (2008).

308 Wis.2d at 385–396, 746 N.W.2d at 596.

Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2 (2011).

Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2 (2011) at 10, quoting State v. Edmunds, 308 Wis.2d at 385.

Donohoe, M. Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome: part I: literature review, 1966–1998. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2003;24(3):239–42.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bandak, FA. Shaken baby syndrome: a biomechanics analysis of injury mechanisms. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;151(1):71–9.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Minns, RA. Shaken baby syndrome: theoretical and evidential controversies. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2005;35:5–15.Google Scholar

Uscinski, RH. Shaken baby syndrome: an odyssey. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2006;46(2):57–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Leetsma, JE. Case analysis of brain injured admittedly shaken infants: 54 cases, 1969–2001. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2005;26(3):199–212.Google Scholar

Squier, W. Shaken baby syndrome: the quest for evidence. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50(1):10–14.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Narang, S. A Daubert analysis of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome. Hous J Health L Pol'y. 2011;11(3):505–633.Google Scholar

Narang, SK, Melville, JD, Greeley, CS, Anderst, JDCarpenter, SL, Spivack, B. A Daubert analysis of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome – part II: an examination of the differential diagnosis. Hous J Health L Pol'y. 2012–2013;13(July 2013):203.Google Scholar

Cavazos, 132 S. Ct. at 10.

Bazelon, E. “Shaken: has a flawed diagnosis put innocent people in prision?” The New York Times (Feb. 6, 2011).

Thompson, AC, Lee, C, Shapiro, J. The Hardest Cases: When Children Die, Justice Can Be Elusive. Available from .

Anderson, M. “Does shaken baby syndrome really exist?” Discover (Dec. 2, 2008).

Tuerkheimer, D. “Anatomy of a misdiagnosis.” The New York Times (Sept. 20, 2010).

Uscinski, RH. “The larger tragedy in an unjust prosecution.” The Washington Post (March 9, 2008).

Frontline. Interview with Patrick Barnes MD. May 26, 2011. Available from .

Goldberg, C. “The real consensus on shaken baby syndrome? Sept. 27, 2010. Available from .

Goldberg, C. “Pediatrics academy president-elect on “shaken baby syndrome,” Oct. 4, 2010. Available from .

State v. Compton, 701 A.2d 468, 472–74 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997).

Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).

Mass. G.L. Ch. 233, s. 79G.

Ortiz v. Stein, 31 Mass. App. 643, 580 N.E. 2d 560 (1991).

Hamlin, S. What Makes Juries Listen. New York, NY: Law & Business; 1985.Google Scholar