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.

>>vorpal+fP
The way I understand it, the testimony that the defendant shook one or more infants angrily onbdifferent occasions would be, according to (b)(1) "Evidence of [an]other crime, wrong, or act, which is not admissible to prove [...] that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

In other words, you can't argue that given there is evidence that the defendant shook babies in anger before, he is the kind of guy who shakes babies in anger, and therefore this is evidence in favour of him having shaken this baby to death.

Regarding (b)(2), I interpret that the testimony that the defendant shook infants in anger in the past would only be admissible under (b)(2) if the previous acts were "proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident". I cannot see how having shaken an infant in the past could provide evidence for any of the above as relates to the separate and specific alleged infant-shaking event for which the defendant was on trial.