The Toronto Star story appears under the heading, "Appeal sought in Dr. Smith baby case."
A sub-heading says: "Father says discredited pathologist's second opinion sparked assault plea in fear of manslaughter conviction."
"A man convicted nearly 14 years ago in the death of his two-month-old son says he "did nothing" to harm the child but felt pressured to plead guilty after "the king" of pediatric forensic pathologists – the now disgraced Dr. Charles Smith – entered the case," the story be legal affairs reporter Tracy Tyler begins.
"Richard Brant, 36, explains his actions in an affidavit filed for a hearing today in the Ontario Court of Appeal, where his lawyers will ask that he be allowed to appeal his 1995 conviction," the story continues;
""I did nothing to cause Dustin's death and I still grieve for him," said Brant. "I never did anything to hurt my son. My decision to plead guilty was the hardest decision of my life."
Smith concluded Dustin Brant died as a result of blunt force trauma, most likely from being violently shaken. But his conclusions were thrown into doubt in 2005 when a team of experts found Smith made mistakes or reached questionable conclusions in at least 20 child death cases, including Dustin's.
That review sparked the recent inquiry into Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
Material filed with the court by Brant's lawyers, James Lockyer and Alison Craig, argue Brant's plea was based on incomplete information.
A father of two daughters, ages 9 and 13, Brant said he still finds it "painful' to reflect on the day in Nov. 1992 when he lifted a plastic rain protector on Dustin's stroller and found his baby in distress, with "red foam" around his nose.
Dustin died in hospital two days later.
While police had suspected Brant from the start, they had no evidence to charge him. Drops of red liquid at family's Belleville home proved to be not blood, as investigators thought, but cough syrup. Dustin had suffered from chest congestion in the days before he died.
A neuropathologist who performed an autopsy listed pneumonia and respiratory failure as causes of death, but the case turned against Brant when Smith was asked for a second opinion and said the autopsy results belonged "in the garbage."
Smith pointed to portions of the autopsy report that indicated bleeding to Dustin's brain as support for his finding the baby was shaken.
Smith, however, never examined Dustin's brain tissue. As a result of a mix-up at the hospital, the brain had been left in water instead of formaldehyde, so samples couldn't be preserved for examination.
Despite this shortcoming, it did not take long for Brant, by then charged with manslaughter, to grasp he was on the losing end of a courtroom battle.
Brant said his defence lawyer, Robert Graydon (now a judge) explained Smith was considered "the king" of his field and his opinions virtually impossible to challenge. Brant was also advised his criminal record at the time could damage his credibility.
If convicted of manslaughter, a four- to six-year prison sentence was likely.
The Crown offered to seek just a six-month sentence in exchange for a plea to aggravated assault, a deal Graydon urged him to accept.
"I felt I had no other option," said Brant, who later moved to New Brunswick and became a truck driver. He won't be in court today. Last year, he was sentenced to four years in prison for robbing a Moncton bar of $1,200 and was recently released on day parole."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmial.com;
Labor’s 30 pieces of voting silver
11 hours ago
