N.J. ruling on shaken baby syndrome could set man on death row free

The latest Jersey Supreme Court’s latest decision could have an impact on cases of shaken infant syndrome, such as the case of a Texas man on death row. Expert testimony about shaken baby syndrome or traumatic head trauma may not be scientifically sound in jury trials. Six justices voted yes and one voted no on November 21.

Robert Roberson, a Texas death row inmate who was found guilty in 2003 of shaking his two-year-old daughter Nikki to death, has new hope after this important ruling. Gretchen Sween, Roberson’s lawyer, wants a new trial since the science behind shaken infant syndrome has changed since her client’s first. Sween noted that the purpose is to make sure that the study is in line with what is known about medicine today, not to verify the diagnosis.

Doctors have known for a long time that shaken baby syndrome can induce subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages, and encephalopathy. But this diagnosis is getting less accurate. Critics are concerned about SBS convictions since other medical conditions or accidents can produce the same symptoms.

The case of State v. Darryl Nieves in New Jersey brought these problems to light. Prosecutors wanted expert testimony showing the caretakers’ aggressive shaking hurt the newborns. The defense said that the injuries could have happened because of natural causes or little falls. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that shaken infant syndrome testimony was not scientific, hence the defense won.

There are a lot of similarities between Roberson’s cases in Texas and New Jersey. On January 31, 2002, he brought his daughter Nikki, who had hurt her brain, to the hospital. The day after his daughter showed signs of shaken baby syndrome, Roberson was found guilty of capital murder. Because of medical uncertainties and the work of groups that fight wrongful convictions, an appeals court stopped his execution. He would have been the first person in the U.S. to be put to death for SBS.

Legal experts are worried that the New Jersey decision could set a precedent for similar cases across the country, which would make judges have to look at shaken baby syndrome evidence again. If Roberson wins, he may get a new trial based on the most recent scientific evidence. This could have an effect on his case.

The New Jersey Supreme Court says that medical testimony is being looked at more closely in court cases, especially those that could end a life. It stresses the importance of scientific proof to convict criminals and keep courts safe. Because of disparities in SBS, this verdict could change how courts look at expert testimony in child damage cases.

Sources:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
The Innocence Project
New Jersey Supreme Court official records
Dallas Morning News