Book contents
- Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- About This Book
- Abbreviations
- Section 1 Prologue
- Section 2 Medicine
- Section 3 Science
- Section 4 Law
- Chapter 18 Mandatory Reporting of Child Maltreatment
- Chapter 19 Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Opinion Evidence in American Courts
- Chapter 20 Undoing Wrongful Convictions
- Section 5 International
- Section 6 Postface
- Appendix: Frequently Repeated Claims concerning Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Chapter 20 - Undoing Wrongful Convictions
Exonerating the Innocent in Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Cases
from Section 4 - Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 June 2023
Book contents
- Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- About This Book
- Abbreviations
- Section 1 Prologue
- Section 2 Medicine
- Section 3 Science
- Section 4 Law
- Chapter 18 Mandatory Reporting of Child Maltreatment
- Chapter 19 Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Opinion Evidence in American Courts
- Chapter 20 Undoing Wrongful Convictions
- Section 5 International
- Section 6 Postface
- Appendix: Frequently Repeated Claims concerning Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
New scientific developments, addressed throughout this book, which challenge the SBS hypothesis present challenges for courts that relied upon the outdated and unchallenged hypothesis to convict caregivers of child abuse. The law is notoriously slow to respond to scientific advances, and its strong fealty to finality makes reopening old convictions, even those that are dependent on flawed science, procedurally difficult. This chapter addresses the challenges posed for courts by shifting SBS science and analyses the bases, and slowly developing movement to reopen old SBS convictions based upon outdated and flawed science.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shaken Baby SyndromeInvestigating the Abusive Head Trauma Controversy, pp. 309 - 320Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Gilliland, MGF. Interval duration between injury and severe symptoms in non-accidental head trauma in infants and young children. Journal of Forensic Science. 1998;43:723–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuerkheimer, D. The next innocence project: Shaken baby syndrome and the criminal courts. Washington University Law Review. 2011;87:1–58.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
Tuerkheimer, D. Flawed convictions: Shaken baby syndrome and the inertia of injustice. Oxford University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Laurin, JE. Criminal law’s science lag: How criminal justice meets changed scientific understanding. Texas Law Review. 2015;93:1751–82.Google Scholar
Findley, KA, Risinger, DM. The science and law underlying post-conviction challenges to shaken baby syndrome convictions: A response to Professor Imwinkelried. Seton Hall Law Review. 2018;48:1209–27.Google Scholar
Hack, P. The roads less traveled: Post conviction relief alternatives and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. American Journal of Criminal Law. 2003;30:171–223.Google Scholar
Medwed, DS. Up the river without a procedure: Innocent prisoners and newly discovered non-DNA evidence. Arizona Law Review. 2005;47:655–718.Google Scholar
Findley, KA. Innocence protection in the appellate process. Marquette Law Review. 2009;93:591–638.Google Scholar
Garrett, B. Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Harvard University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Debelbot v State, 826 S.E.2d 129 (Ga. 2019).Google Scholar
People v Bailey, 47 Misc. 3d 355, 370 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 2014), affirmed, 144 A.D.3d 1562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016).Google Scholar
State v Cicogni, 2020 WL 5290709 (Ariz. Super. 2020).Google Scholar
Commonwealth v Epps, 553 N.E.2d 1247 (Mass. 2016).Google Scholar
State v Hansen, 805 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. 2011).Google Scholar
State v Quentin Louis, 2011 WL 867677 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).Google Scholar
Gerber, M. Judge orders release of woman who served 11 years behind bars in grandson’s death. Los Angeles Times. 2018. https://lat.ms/3T75zv3.Google Scholar
People v Miller, 2021 WL 1326733 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).Google Scholar
Maryland appellate court cites subsequent scientific and medical literature in granting relief to a man convicted in 1999 of the shaken baby syndrome death of his infant son. https://bit.ly/3NHc1Ib.Google Scholar
People v Ackley, 870 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. 2015).Google Scholar
People v Baumer, 781 N.W.2d 309 (Mich. 2010).Google Scholar
Payne, S. Woman sentenced to life after stepson’s death released, may see new trial. Tulsa World. 2019. https://bit.ly/3UteKaq.Google Scholar
Ceasor v Ocwieja, 655 Fed. Appx. 263 (6th Cir. 2016), and People v Ceasor, 954 N.W.2d 830 (Mich. 2021).Google Scholar
Cenziper, D. Shaken science: A disputed diagnosis imprisons parents. Washington Post. 2015. https://wapo.st/3zJPTHp.Google Scholar
State v Hales, 152 P.3d 321 (Utah 2007).Google Scholar
State v Jones, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, CR2004-036702–001, order entered 22 June 2020.Google Scholar
Commonwealth v Millien, 50 N.E.2d 808 (Mass. 2016).Google Scholar
State v Pheils, 2015 WL 5306548 (Ct. App. Ohio 2015).Google Scholar
People v Roberts, 892 N.W.2d 353 (Mich. 2017).Google Scholar
State v Schoonmaker, 176 P.3d 1105 (N. Mex. 2008).Google Scholar
Spurgeon v State, 298 So.3d 726 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla. 2020).Google Scholar
State v Ware, 679 S.E.2d 797 (Ga. 2009).Google Scholar
Brown v State, 152 So.3d 1146 (Miss. 2014).Google Scholar
Isham v State, 161 So.3d 1076 (Miss. 2015).Google Scholar
State v Gallaway, 2105 WL 4460992 (Del. Sup. Ct. 2015).Google Scholar
Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Shaken baby syndrome: Inflicted cerebral trauma. Pediatrics. 1993;92:872–5.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Shaken baby syndrome: Rotational cranial injuries. Technical report. Pediatrics. 2001;108:206–10.Google Scholar
Christian, CW, Block, R, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Abusive head trauma in infants and children. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1409–11.Google Scholar
Narang, S, Fingarson, A, Lukefar, J, Council on Child Abuse and Neglect. Abusive head trauma in infants and children. Pediatrics. 2020;145:1–7.Google Scholar
Choudhary, K, Servaes, S, Slovis, TL et al. Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children. Pediatric Radiology. 2018;48:1048–65.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narang, SK, Sachdev, KK, Bertocci, K et al. Overturned abusive head trauma and shaken baby syndrome convictions in the United States: Prevalence, legal basis, and medical evidence. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2021;122:105380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105380.Google Scholar
Findley, KA, Angulo Amaya, MC, Hatch, G, Smith, JP. Plea bargaining in the shadow of a retrial: Bargaining away innocence. Wisconsin Law Review. 2022:533–618. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3944845.Google Scholar
Statement of the Innocence Network on Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma. https://bit.ly/3t6eUIU.Google Scholar