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
SBS is well supported by the medical literature and extensive studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25616019/ (an overview)

This man was not committed to death row because of one doctor. He was found guilty because multiple people in his life testified he had a history of violently shaking and screaming at a child for crying.

>>vorpal+mm
> He was found guilty because multiple people in his life testified he had a history of violently shaking and screaming at a child for crying.

IANAL, but wouldn't that be against the rule that character evidence cannot be used by the prosecution (unless in countering character evidence from the defence)?

Specifically, I believe what you describe would be in contravention of the following: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

> (a) Character Evidence.

> (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

> [...]

> b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.

> (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

> (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

>>Mordis+zt
Re-read (b)(2).

You can't testify that a defendent was "a jealous man" or "of unsavory character". You can testify that you saw him shake an infant angrily until she passed out.