Shaken Baby Syndrome – A Theory
Shaken Baby Syndrome, often referred to as SBS, is the theory a serious brain injury happens to babies when someone shakes them forcefully. According to the theory, it can cause symptoms like vomiting, breathing problems, paralysis, and seizures. Internal injuries, such as bleeding in the brain and eyes, spinal cord damage, and bone fractures, are also linked to SBS. Typically, there is some evidence of prior child abuse in cases where Shaken Baby Syndrome has been properly diagnosed. In some cases, babies have suffered from SBS because they were not in a car seat or were not seated correctly.
However, recent research has shown that SBS has been overdiagnosed, leading to wrongful convictions. Some symptoms thought to be signs of SBS have been found in cases where SBS is not present. For instance, retinal hemorrhaging was once considered evidence of SBS, but it can occur without shaking. Bone fractures during childbirth and injuries up to 72 hours (“lucid interval”) before a baby’s death were previously thought to be immediate signs of SBS, but new understanding challenges this. Additionally, studies have shown that short falls can cause head trauma that many have previously diagnosed as the result of SBS.
Audrey Edmunds Conviction Reversed
The case of Audrey Edmunds in Wisconsin highlights how wrongful convictions can happen. In 1996, Edmunds was a neighborhood childcare provider. One day, Edmunds found one of the children to be unresponsive and took the child to the hospital. Despite no signs of external injuries and no witnesses who saw her shake the infant, Edmunds was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Prosecution experts had testified that the infant’s injuries were equivalent to a major car crash so the injuries could not have been accidental. Later, through the efforts of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, experts found that fatal head injuries could have been caused when the child was out of Edmunds’ care. In 2008, a Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed her conviction based on the emergence of this new scientific evidence.
Similar cases, like that of Ken Marsh, show that changes in SBS science can correct wrongful convictions. In that case, The Innocence Center’s board member Justin Brooks, along with the San Diego District Attorney’s office, hired experts to review the case. The DA’s expert concluded he could not support the original analysis, and the District Attorney’s office agreed to Marsh’s release after 20 years of imprisonment.
While the SBS community continues to debate, it’s crucial for incarcerated individuals to have the opportunity to re-examine their cases and prove their innocence. This evolving understanding of SBS emphasizes the importance of accurate science in legal decisions.
Of course, SBS or other related injuries are sad and cause issues within families and communities. If you’re a parent struggling with a baby’s health, it’s essential to seek help from your doctor. The internet can be a useful resource for finding information, articles, and videos and connecting with others going through similar challenges.
The Innocence Network’s Statement on SBS
The Innocence Network released a statement on SBS and Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) in April 2019. Read about it here.
Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) should no longer be used in criminal prosecutions
1. Scientific Consensus Has Shifted
The original theory behind SBS, particularly the “triad” of symptoms (subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage, and brain swelling), has been called into question. Modern medical research has shown that these symptoms can be caused by a variety of conditions such as birth trauma, accidents, infections, or other medical issues, without any evidence of abuse. Continuing to use SBS in prosecutions ignores the evolving medical understanding.
2. Lack of Direct Evidence
Prosecutions based on SBS often lack any direct evidence of shaking or abuse. Instead, they rely heavily on medical testimony interpreting the “triad” of symptoms as proof of violent shaking. This circumstantial medical inference does not meet the rigorous standards for proving criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Risk of Misdiagnosis
Many SBS cases involve ambiguous or incomplete medical evidence, and misdiagnoses are a serious risk. There are documented instances where other medical conditions were later discovered, but only after convictions had been secured. Conditions like bleeding disorders, vitamin deficiencies, or accidental trauma can mimic SBS symptoms.
4. False Confessions Under Pressure
There is a history of suspects being coerced or pressured into confessing to shaking an infant, particularly when faced with intense questioning or being falsely told that the child’s injuries could only have resulted from abuse. Many of these confessions were later recanted, but the damage had already been done in court.
5. High Rate of Wrongful Convictions
There is a growing body of exoneration cases where individuals convicted of SBS have been proven innocent through new medical evidence or alternative explanations for the injuries. This demonstrates a pattern of wrongful convictions, undermining the credibility of SBS as a basis for prosecution.
For those already convicted and serving sentences based on SBS, the following actions should be taken:
- Case Reviews: Every SBS conviction should be re-evaluated in light of current medical science. Independent forensic experts should be brought in to review the medical evidence and assess whether the diagnosis was correct.
- Access to Appeals: Convicted individuals must have access to post-conviction relief, including the opportunity to present newly available medical research or expert testimony that was not available at the time of trial.
- Commutations and Exonerations: In cases where new evidence clearly shows the original conviction was flawed or based on outdated science, clemency, commutations, or exonerations should be pursued. States should prioritize these cases, as many innocent people may still be incarcerated.
- Reform of Prosecutorial Practices: Prosecutors should adopt a more cautious approach and work with defense attorneys to ensure that future cases are built on sound medical and scientific grounds, avoiding the pitfalls that have led to wrongful convictions in the past.
This comprehensive approach is crucial to ensure justice for both those wrongfully convicted and future defendants.
