zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who in 1971 suggested the cause might be violent shaking" (emphasis mine).

>>GlumWo+lb
You sometimes get the stereotypical esoteric forensics experts, who tour the country saying they have some special ability to identify bites or toeprints or whatever. I pretty much agree with you there; their methods are unproven, there's very little reason to think they can actually do what they claim, judges simply shouldn't let them testify.

This case is harder. Medical questions about what happened to a victim are often highly relevant, and doctors are legitimate, credentialed experts qualified to speak on that topic. If they believe based on their training and experience that suchandsuch symptoms mean blunt force trauma, how could a random judge evaluate whether they have enough scientific backing to say that?

>>SpicyL+zf
A judge can and should seek confirmation from additional experts, and if some then reasonably cast doubt on the certainty of others' testimony, that ought to be considered.

>>coucha+Rg
It's not really a judge's role to go out and find witnesses. Defendants can, but as the article describes, "shaken baby syndrome" was official guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics at the time.

>>SpicyL+sh
Right, if one party puts forward an unchallenged expert witness, sure, there's not much a judge can do. It sounds like the original case was like that.

It sounds like the appeal is NOT like that, the judge having seemingly ignored the very reasonable challenge to the original witness testimony.

>>coucha+vz
Appeals aren’t meant to be a redo of the original trial. The judge ruled that he didn’t prove he was innocent, or that a reasonable juror couldn’t have voted to convict him if they saw his new evidence.

>>SpicyL+4D
Please explain how "expert testimony has been widely discredited" doesn't count as new evidence?

>>coucha+vG
It’s new evidence, but it doesn’t contradict the entire case. In particular, there are witnesses who said they saw him abuse the kid in the past, and child abuse remains a real thing regardless of medical disputes about whether there’s a distinct “shaken baby syndrome”. So the judge felt that a reasonable juror could have convicted him even in light of the new information.