Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Opinion Evidence in American Courts

doi:10.1017/9781009177894.020

Chapter 19 - Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Opinion Evidence in American Courts

from Section 4 - Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 June 2023

Edited by

Waney Squier and

Keith A. Findley: Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Cyrille Rossant: Affiliation:
University College London
Kana Sasakura: Affiliation:
Konan University, Japan
Leila Schneps: Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, Paris
Waney Squier: Affiliation:
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford
Knut Wester: Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The clinical diagnostic process invokes unvalidated general-causation theory (shaking) as an explanation for clinical findings in infants. These medical findings (subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage, and encephalopathy) are non-specific and develop in natural diseases and accidents. Yet child protection teams associate these findings with abuse. Such ‘diagnosis’ of abuse, triggers social service and law enforcement intervention. Outside the clinical system, which errs on the side of child safety, the SBS/AHT general-causation theories have been challenged. Biomechanical, neuropathological, and forensic pathology research disputes the validity of the shaking theory. Medical ethicists and epidemiologists question the clinical reliance upon data and studies limited by circular reasoning and case selection bias. While ‘child abuse’ may be a ‘valid diagnosis’ for triggering social service intervention, it is not a scientifically sound diagnosis. Lacking foundational validity and support in the relevant scientific fields, SBS/AHT lacks reliability and general acceptance. Expert opinion of SBS/AHT general causation theory is inadmissible under a Daubert or Frye analysis.

Keywords

expert testimony admissibility evidentiary principles Daubert Frye circular reasoning cognitive bias general causation specific causation differential diagnosis advocacy bias

Type: Chapter
Information: Shaken Baby Syndrome
Investigating the Abusive Head Trauma Controversy
, pp. 287 - 308

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009177894.020 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023

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.)

References

Narang, SK, Melville, JD, Greeley, CS et al. A Daubert analysis of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome. Part II: An examination of the differential diagnosis. Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2013;203–327.Google Scholar

Christian, CW. Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect clinical report: The evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):e1337–e1354.Google Scholar

Berger, MA. The admissibility of expert testimony, the federal judicial center and National Research Council. In Reference manual on scientific evidence. 3rd ed. Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, ed. National Academies Press, 2011, p. 12.Google Scholar

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar

Evid, Fed. R.. 401.Google Scholar

Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).Google Scholar

Findley, KA, Strang, DA. Ending manner-of-death testimony and other opinion determinations of crime. Duquesne Law Review. 2022;60:302–38.Google Scholar

Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013(D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar

Wong, JB, Gostin, LO, Cabrera, OA. Reference guide on medical testimony: The Federal Judicial Center and National Research Council. In Reference manual on scientific evidence. 3rd ed. National Academies Press, 2011, p. 690.Google Scholar

Lynøe, N, Eriksson, A. A diagnostic test can prove anything if you use incorrect assumptions and circular reasoning. Acta Paediatrica. 2018;107:2051–3.Google Scholar

Bowers v Norfolk S. Corp., 537 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1360-61 (M.D. Ga. 2007), aff’d, 300 F. App’x 700 (11th Cir. 2008).Google Scholar

C.W. ex rel. Wood v Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2015).Google Scholar

Tamraz v Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665, 673 (6th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar

Findley, KA, Risinger, DM, Barnes, PD et al. Feigned consensus: Usurping the law in shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma prosecutions. Wisconsin Law Review. 2019:1211–67.Google Scholar

Findley, KA, Barnes, PD, Moran, DA, Sperling, C. Examining SBS convictions in light of new medical scientific research. Oklahoma City University Law Review. 2012;37:219–50.Google Scholar

Smith, DW. The death of negative corpus. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Fire Investigation Science and Technology. National Association of Fire Investigators International, 2012.Google Scholar

Goudge Report, P. 520 Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. Volume 3. www.fixcas.com/news/2008/Vol_3_Eng.pdf.Google Scholar

Ervin v Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar

Hendrix v Evenflo Co., Inc., 609 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar

Hall v Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947. F.Supp. 1387 (D. Oregon 1996).Google Scholar

In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Contact lens Solution Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 1627807 (D.S.C., 2010).Google Scholar

In re Breast Implant Litigation 11 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D. Colorado 1998).Google Scholar

Wynacht v Beckman Instruments, Inc., 113 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1209 (E.D. Tenn. 2000).Google Scholar

Sanders, J, Faigman, DL, Imrey, PB, Dawid, P. Differential etiology: Inferring specific causation in the law from group data in science. Arizona Law Review. 2021;63:851–921.Google Scholar

McClain v Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F3d 1233, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar

Brief for the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences as Amici Curiae, Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar

Calvo, F, Karras, BT, Phillips, R et al. Diagnoses, syndromes, and diseases: A knowledge representation problem. In AMIA 2003 annual symposium proceedings, vol. 2003. American Medical Informatics Association, 2003, p. 802.Google Scholar

Wulff, HR. Rational diagnosis and treatment: An introduction to clinical decision-making. 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific, 1981. Diagnosis As a Matter of Opinion, p. 109.Google Scholar

Brooks, W, Weathers, L. Overview of shaken baby syndrome. In The shaken baby syndrome: A multidisciplinary approach. Lazoritz, S, Palusci, VJ, eds. Haworth Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Caffey, J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. American Journal of Diseases of Children. 1972;124:161–9.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Caffey, J. The whiplash shaken infant syndrome. Pediatrics. 1974;54(4):396–403.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Dykes, LJ. The whiplash shaken infant syndrome: What has been learned? Child Abuse and Neglect. 1986;10:211–21.Google Scholar

Ludwig, S, Warman, M. SBS: A review of 20 cases. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1984;13(2):104–7.Google Scholar

Billmire, E, Myers, P. Serious head injury in infants: Accident or abuse? Pediatrics. 1985;75(2):340–2.Google Scholar

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Shaken baby syndrome: Inflicted cerebral trauma. Pediatrics. 1993;92(6):872–5.Google Scholar

Chadwick, DL, Kirschner, RH, Reece, RM et al. Shaken baby syndrome: A forensic pediatric response. Pediatrics. 1998;101:321–3.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ommaya, AK, Goldsmith, W, Thibault, L. Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury. British Journal of Neurosurgery. 2002;16(3):220–42.Google Scholar

Reece, RM, Nicholson, CE, eds. Inflicted childhood neurotrauma: Proceedings of a conference sponsored by Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Office of Rare Diseases, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002.Google Scholar

Jenny, C. Modes of presentation of inflicted childhood neurotrauma. In Inflicted childhood neurotrauma: Proceedings of a conference sponsored by Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Office of Rare Diseases, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. Reece, RM, Nicholson, CE, eds. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002, pp. 49–63.Google Scholar

Nelson v Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 243 F.3d 244, 254 (6th Cir. 2001).Google Scholar

Young v Burton, 567 F. Supp.2d 121, 137 (D. D.C. 2008).Google Scholar

Mancuso v Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 967 F. Supp. 1437, 1450 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).Google Scholar

Durden v Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 05-163V, 2007 WL 4962000, at *13 (Fed. Cl. 26 September 2007).Google Scholar

O’Conner v Commonwealth Edison Co., 807 F. Supp. 1376, 1396 (C.D. Ill. 1992).Google Scholar

Vinchon, M. Reply to Professor Charles Hyman: The scientific controversy over AHT in infants. Child’s Nervous System. 2011;27:203–4.Google Scholar

Rowe, DS, Leonard, MF, Seashore, MR et al. A hospital program for the detection and registration of abused and neglected children. New England Journal of Medicine. 1970;282:950–2.Google Scholar

Besharov, DJ. What physicians should know about child abuse reporting laws. In Child abuse and neglect: A medical reference. Ellersetin, NS, ed. Wiley, 1981, pp. 21–50.Google Scholar

Hansen, P, Ainsworth, F. Examining child protection practice in New South Wales: Non-accidental injury and the principle of strict liability. Children Australia. 2020;45:8–13.Google Scholar

Choudhary, AK, Narang, SK, Moreno, JA et al. A consensus response on the complete picture: Reply to Lynøe and Eriksson. Pediatric Radiology. 2019;49:424–8.Google Scholar

Duhaime, AC, Christian, CW. Abusive head trauma: Evidence, obfuscation, and informed management. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics. 2019;24:481–8.Google Scholar

Brown, SD. Ethical challenges in child abuse: What is the harm of a misdiagnosis? Pediatric Radiology. 2021;51:1070–5.Google Scholar

Kempe, CH, Silverman, FN, Steele, BF et al. The battered child syndrome. JAMA. 1962;181:17–24. Reprinted in Journal of the American Medical Association. 1984;251(24):3294.Google Scholar

Helfer, RE, Kempe, CH. The child’s need for early recognition, immediate care and protection. In Helping the battered child and family. Kempe, CH, ed. Lippincott, 1972, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar

Report to the President Forensic Science in Criminal Courts. Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods, Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016, pp. 1–160.Google Scholar

Keenan, HT, Campbell, KA, Page, K et al. Perceived social risk in medical decision-making for physical child abuse: A mixed-methods study. BMC Pediatrics. 2017;17(214):1–10.Google Scholar

Rivara, FP, Kamitsuka, MD, Quan, L. Injuries to children younger than 1 year of age. Pediatrics. 1988;81(1):93–7.Google Scholar

Kellogg, ND. Evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Pediatrics. 2007;119(6):1232–41.Google Scholar

Goldstein, B, Kelly, MM, Bruton, D et al. Inflicted versus accidental head injury in critically injured children. Critical Care Medicine. 1993;21(9):1328–32.Google Scholar

Wester, K, Stridbeck, U, Syse, A, Wikstrom, J. Re-evaluation of medical findings in alleged shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma in Norwegian courts fails to support abuse diagnoses. Acta Paediatrica. 2022;111(4):779–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15956.Google Scholar

Kirschner, RH, Stein, RJ. The mistaken diagnosis of child abuse: A form of medical abuse? American Journal of Diseases of Children. 1985;139:873–5.Google Scholar

Anderst, J, Nielsen-Parker, M, Moffatt, M et al. Using simulation to identify sources of medical diagnostic error in child physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2016;52:62–9.Google Scholar

Schiff, GD. Minimizing diagnostic error: The importance of follow-up and feedback. American Journal of Medicine. 2008;121(5A):S38–S42.Google Scholar

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Shaken baby syndrome: Rotational cranial injuries. Technical report. Pediatrics. 2001;108(1):206–10.Google Scholar

Guthkelch, AN. Problems of infant retino-dural hemorrhage with minimal external injury. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2012;12:201–8.Google Scholar

Hobbs, CJ. Skull fracture and the diagnosis of abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 1984;59:246–52.Google Scholar

Lynøe, N, Juth, N, Eriksson, A. From child protection to paradigm protection: The genesis development and defense of a scientific paradigm. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2018:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy015.Google Scholar

Högberg, U, Lampa, E, Högberg, G et al. Infant abuse diagnosis associated with abusive head trauma criteria: Incidence increase due to overdiagnosis? European Journal of Public Health. 2018;28(4):641–6.Google Scholar

Riggs, JE, Hobbs, GR. Infant homicide and accidental death in the United States, 1940–2005: Ethics and epidemiological classification. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011;37:445–8.Google Scholar

Case, ME, Graham, MA, Handy, TC et al. Position paper on fatal abusive head injuries in infants and young children. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 2001;22(2):112–22.Google Scholar

Tuerkheimer, D. Science-dependent prosecution and the problem of epistemic contingency: A study of shaken baby syndrome. Alabama Law Review. 2011;62:513–69.Google Scholar

Narang, SK. A Daubert analysis of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2011;11:505–635.Google Scholar

Hymel, KP, Jenny, C, Block, RW. Intracranial hemorrhage and rebleeding in suspected victims of abusive head trauma: Addressing the forensic controversies. Child Maltreatment. 2002;7(4):329–48.Google Scholar

Matschke, J, Voss, J, Obi, N et al. Nonaccidental head injury is the most common cause of subdural bleeding in infants < 1 year of age. Pediatrics. 2009;124(6):1587–94.Google Scholar

Scheimberg, I, Cohen, MC, Zapata, RE et al. Nontraumatic intradural and subdural hemorrhage and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy in fetuses, infants, and children up to three years of age: Analysis of two audits of 636 cases from two referral centers in the United Kingdom. Pediatric and Developmental Pathology. 2013;16:149–59.Google Scholar

Hogberg, G, Colville-Ebeling, B, Hogberg, U et al. Circularity bias in abusive head trauma studies could be diminished with a new ranking scale. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2016;6:6–10.Google Scholar

Blumbergs, P, Reilly, P, Vink, R. Trauma. In Greenfield’s neuropathology: Volume I. 8th ed. Love, S, Louis, DN, Ellison, DW, eds. Edward Arnold, 2008, pp. 733–831.Google Scholar

Geddes, JF, Hacksaw, AK, Vowels, GH et al. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children I. Patterns of brain damage. Brain. 2001;124:1290–8.Google Scholar

Geddes, JF, Vowels, GH, Hacksaw, AK et al. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children II. Microscopic brain injury in infants. Brain. 2001;124:1299–1306.Google Scholar

Oehmichen, M, Schleiss, D, Pedal, I. Shaken baby syndrome: Re-examination of diffuse axonal injury as cause of death. Acta Neuropathologica. 2008;116:317–29.Google Scholar

Matschke, J, Buttner, A, Bergman, M et al. Encephalopathy and death in infants with abusive head trauma is due to hypoxic-ischemic injury following local brain trauma to vital brainstem centers. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2015;129:105–14.Google Scholar

Geddes, JF, Tasker, RC, Hacksaw, AK et al. Dural haemorrhage in non-traumatic infant deaths: Does it explain the bleeding in ‘shaken baby syndrome’? Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology. 2003;29:14–22.Google Scholar

Geddes, JF. Nonaccidental trauma: Clinical aspects and epidemiology of child abuse. Pediatric Radiology. 2009;39(7):759–61.Google Scholar

Lantz, PE, Stanton, CA. Postmortem detection & evaluation of retinal hemorrhages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2006;271:12 (retinal haemorrhages present at autopsy in infants who died from meningitis, asphyxia/suffocation, prematurity/congenital conditions, heart disease, in utero haemorrhage, blunt force trauma, sudden infant death syndrome/resuscitation, apnoea/gastro-oesophageal reflux, and birth-related causes).Google Scholar

Thiblin, I, Andersson, J, Wester, K et al. Retinal hemorrhage in infants investigated for suspected maltreatment is strongly correlated with intracranial pathology. Acta Pediatrica. 2021;00:1–9.Google Scholar

Christian, CW, Levin, AV. The eye examination in the evaluation of child abuse. Pediatrics. 2018;142(2):1–8.Google Scholar

Mattheij, M, Venstermans, C, de Veuster, I et al. Retinal haemorrhages in a university hospital: Not always abusive head injury. Acta Neurologica Belgica. 2017;117:515–22.Google Scholar

Duhaime, AC, Alario, AJ, Lewander, WJ. Head injury in very young children: Mechanisms, injuries, and ophthalmologic findings in 100 hospitalized patients younger than 2 years of age. Pediatrics. 1992;90(2):179–85.Google Scholar

Emerson, MV, Jacobs, E, Green, WR. Ocular autopsy and histopathologic features of child abuse. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1384–94.Google Scholar

Del Prete v Thompson, 10 F.Supp.3d 907, 931-2 (N.D.Ill. 2014).Google Scholar

Callaway, NF, Ludwig, CA, Blumenkranz, MS et al. Retinal and optic nerve hemorrhages in the newborn infant: One-year results of the Newborn Eye Screen Test (NEST) study. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1043–52.Google Scholar

Mena, OJ, Paul, I, Reichard, RR. Ocular findings in raised intracranial pressure. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 2011;32:55–7.Google Scholar

Bhardwaj, G, Jacobs, MB, Moran, KT et al. Terson syndrome with ipsilateral severe hemorrhagic retinopathy in a 7-month-old child. Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2010;14:5;441–3.Google Scholar

Agrawal, S, Peters, MJ, Adams, GW et al. Prevalence of retinal hemorrhages in critically ill children. Pediatrics. 2012;129(6):e1388–e1396.Google Scholar

Minns, RA, Jones, PA, Tandon, A et al. Raised intracranial pressure and retinal haemorrhages in childhood encephalopathies. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2017;59:597–604.Google Scholar

Gardner, HB. Letter to editor. Archives of Pediatrics. (16 April 2012).Google Scholar

Galaznik, J. Response to ‘Retinal Hemorrhages in Children’ by Ms Shiau and Dr. Levin. (16 April 2012).Google Scholar

Vinchon, M, Delestret, I, Defoort-Dhellemmes, S et al. Subdural hematoma in infants: Can it occur spontaneously? Data from a prospective series and critical review of the literature. Child’s Nervous System. 2010;26:119501205.Google Scholar

Shuman, MJ, Hutchins, KD. Severe retinal hemorrhages with retinoschisis in infants are not pathognomonic for abusive head trauma. Journal of Forensic Science. 2017;62(3):807–11.Google Scholar

Coats, B, Binenbaum, G, Smith, C et al. Cyclic head rotations produce modest brain injury in infant piglets. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2016;33:1–13.Google Scholar

Thiblin, I, Anderson, J, Wester, K et al. Medical findings and symptoms in infants exposed to witnessed or admitted abusive shaking: A nationwide registry study. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240182.Google Scholar

Levin, AV. Retinal hemorrhages of crush head injury: Learning from outliers. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2006;124:1773–4.Google Scholar

Levin, AV. Ophthalmic manifestations of inflicted childhood neurotrauma. In Inflicted childhood neurotrauma: Proceedings of a conference sponsored by Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Office of Rare Diseases, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. Reece, RM, Nicholson, CE, eds. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002, pp. 127–64.Google Scholar

Togioka, BM, Arnold, MA, Bathurst, MA et al. Retinal hemorrhages and shaken baby syndrome: An evidence-based review. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2009;37(1):98–106.Google Scholar

Levin, AV, Christian, CW, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, Section on Ophthalmology. The eye examination in the evaluation of child abuse. Pediatrics. 2010;126;376.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011, p. 62.Google Scholar

Kaye, DH, Freedman, DA . Reference guide on statistics. In Reference manual on scientific evidence. 3rd ed. National Academies Press, 2011, pp. 218–19.Google Scholar

Meister v Medical Engineering Corp., 267 F.3d 1123, 1129, 347 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 367 (C.A.D.C.,2001).Google Scholar

Black v Food Lion, Inc., 171 F.3d 308, 314 (5th Cir.1999).Google Scholar

Levinson, JD, Pasquale, MA, Lambert, SR. Diffuse bilateral retinal hemorrhages in an infant with a coagulopathy and prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2016;20(2):166–8.Google Scholar

Risinger, DM. Defining the task at hand: Non-science forensic science after Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael. Washington and Lee Law Review. 2000;57:767, 776–7.Google Scholar

Duhaime, AC, Gennarelli, RA, Thibault, LE et al. The shaken baby syndrome: A clinical, pathological, and biomechanical study. Journal of Neurosurgery. 1987;66:409–15.Google Scholar

Matshes, EW. Retinal and optic nerve sheath hemorrhages are not pathognomonic of abusive head injury. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 2010. www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/AAFS-2010-G1.pdf.Google Scholar

Narang, SK, Estrada, C, Greenberg, S et al. Acceptance of shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma as medical diagnoses. Journal of Pediatrics. 2016;177:273–8.Google Scholar

Donohoe, M. Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome. Part I: Literature review, 1966–1998. American Journal of Forensic and Medical Pathology. 2003;24:239–42.Google Scholar

DiMaio, VJ, DiMaio, D. Forensic pathology. CRC Press, 2001, p. 362.Google Scholar

Dias, MS. The case for shaking. In Child abuse and neglect. Jenny, C., ed. Saunders, 2011, pp. 364–72.Google Scholar

SBU Assessment Report 255E/2016 Traumatic Shaking. The role of the triad in medical investigations of suspected traumatic shaking: A systematic review. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services.Google Scholar

Lynøe, N, Elinder, G, Hallberg, B et al. Insufficient evidence for ‘shaken baby syndrome’: A systematic review. Acta Paediatrica. 2017;106:1021–7.Google Scholar

101 General Elec. Co. v Joiner, 522 R.C. U.S. 136 (1997).Google Scholar

Findley, KA, Risinger, DM, Barnes, PD et al. Feigned consensus: Usurping the law in shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma prosecutions. Wisconsin Law Review. 2019;1211:1238–45.Google Scholar

Choudhary, AK, Servaes, S, Slovis, T et al. Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children. Pediatric Radiology. 2018;48(8):1048–65.Google Scholar

Findley, KA, Barnes, PD, Moran, DA, Squier, W. Shaken baby syndrome, abusive head trauma, and actual innocence: Getting it right. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2012;12:209–312.Google Scholar

Greenhalgh, T. How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine and healthcare. 6th ed. Wiley Blackwell, 2019.Google Scholar

Bhardwaj, G, Chowdhury, V, Jacobs, MB et al. A systematic review of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ocular Signs in Pediatric Abusive Head Trauma. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:983–92.Google Scholar

Maguire, S, Pickerd, N, Farewell, D et al. Which clinical features distinguish inflicted from non-inflicted brain injury? A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2009:94:860–7.Google Scholar

Maguire, SA, Kemp, AM, Lumb, RC et al. Estimating the probability of abusive head trauma: A pooled analysis. Pediatrics. 2011;128;e550.Google Scholar

Piteau, SJ, Ward, MGK, Barrowman, NJ et al. Clinical and radiographic characteristics associated with abusive and nonabusive head trauma: A systematic review Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):315–23.Google Scholar

Kemp, AM, Jaspan, T, Griffiths, J et al. Neuroimaging: What neuroradiological features distinguish abusive from non-abusive head trauma? A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2011;96(12):1103–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-300630.Google Scholar

Vinchon, M, Deefoort-Dhellemmes, S, Desuromont, M et al. Accidental and nonaccidental head injuries in infants: A prospective study. Journal of Neurosurgery (Pediatrics 4). 2005;102 :380–4.Google Scholar

Greeley, C. Justice for Rehma. Science under attack: ‘I can say with 100% medical certainty that abusive head trauma is what a child has and then I stop[.]’ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/12/health/shaken-baby-syhndrome-legal-battle/chapter-2.html.Google Scholar

Aspelin, P. Keynote address: Can a sign or occult finding predict a causal relationship? How to reason about possible child abuse. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 2017;50(3):757.Google Scholar

Lynøe, N, Rosen, M, Eriksson, A. Questions about isolated traumatic shaking and confessions. Child’s Nervous System. 2017;33:731–2.Google Scholar

Vinchon, M. Response to Lynøe: Questions about isolated trauma shaking and confessions. Child’s Nervous System. 2017;33(9):1423–4.Google Scholar

Lynøe, N, Rosen, M, Eriksson, A. Vinchon’s responses raise additional questions about the shaken baby-study. Child’s Nervous System. 2018;34 :11–13.Google Scholar

Damon-Moore, SL. Trial judges and the forensic science problem. New York University Law Review. 2017;92:1532–70.Google Scholar

State v Jacoby, 2018 WL 5098763(N.J.Super.L.)(Trial Order).Google Scholar

State v Darryl Nieves, Decision issued 7 January 2022 (Indictment No. 17- 06-00785)(N.J.Super.Court).Google Scholar

Guthkelch, AN. Infantile subdural haematoma and its relationship to whiplash injuries. British Medical Journal. 1971;2:430–1.Google Scholar

Shapiro, M, Walker, M, Carroll, KT et al. Neuroanatomy of cranial dural vessels: Implications for subdural hematoma embolization. Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery. 2021;13:471–7.Google Scholar

Book contents

Chapter 19 - Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Opinion Evidence in American Courts

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive