RICHARD BRANT; CROWN AND DEFENCE JOINTLY CALL FOR HIS ACQUITTAL IN 1992 INFANT DEATH AT TOMORROW'S (WEDNESDAY 4 MAY, 2011) APPEAL; THE CANADIAN PRESS;

"The Crown is conceding that it was a "miscarriage of justice" when a man pleaded guilty in the death of his two-month-old son because of the daunting spectre of testimony from now-disgraced pathologist Charles Smith.

Both the Crown and the defence are calling for the Court of Appeal for Ontario to acquit Richard Brant, in light of fresh evidence. The court is scheduled to hear his case Wednesday."

REPORTER ALLISON JONES; THE CANADIAN PRESS;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXCELLENT BACKGROUNDER FOR RICHARD BRANT'S APPEAL: HIS FACTUM;

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-brant-another-charles-smith.html

ALSO WORTH READING IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEAL: RICHARD BRANT'S OWN WORDS; HIS AFFIDAVIT; (ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-brant-charles-smith-case-his.html


REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Friday May 6, 2011, on Global TV. 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: (GLOBE AND MAIL); Richard Brant was convicted of aggravated assault in 1995 for the death of his two-month-old son, Dustin. Mr. Brant was taking Dustin for a walk when he noticed red foam around the baby’s nose. Dustin died two days later, on Nov. 18, 1992. (Then) Dr. Smith (but since struck from the register of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) concluded Dustin had been shaken to death, despite the fact that the baby’s brain had rotted away after morgue staff mistakenly left it in a container of water. His findings contradicted the findings of a neuropathologist who had examined the child’s brain and concluded he had likely died of pneumonia. Mr. Brant said he felt compelled to plead guilty to aggravated assault to avoid a possible manslaughter conviction. He conceded he had accidentally jostled Dustin during a physical struggle with his wife. In January, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted Mr. Brant permission to reopen the case and fight his conviction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(MORE BACKGROUND: ASSOCIATION IN DEFENCE OF THE WRONGLY CONVICTED PRESS RELEASE: }Tomorrow morning, Wednesday, May 4, 2011, Richard Brant will appear before the Ontario Court of Appeal to request that his 1995 conviction for aggravated assault be quashed and to be acquitted of the charge. On November 17, 1992, while out for a walk in downtown Belleville, Richard Brant found his nine week old son Dustin lifeless in his baby carriage. Dustin was rushed to hospital, but died early the next morning. An autopsy was conducted at Kingston General Hospital by Dr. Sukrita Nag, Professor of Neuropathology, who determined that Dustin likely died from pneumonia. The police requested a second opinion from Charles Smith. On April 15, 1993, Dr. Smith provided a report in which he concluded that Dustin had died from “either shaking or something hit his head or his head hit something” while he was with his father. He asserted that Dustin exhibited the classic symptoms of Shaken Baby Syndrome, and suggested that the original autopsy report should be “filed in the garbage can”. Mr. Brant was charged with manslaughter. Following a preliminary inquiry in which Dr. Smith testified, Mr. Brant was offered a short custodial sentence and told his manslaughter charge would be dropped if he agreed to plead guilty to aggravated assault. He was advised by his lawyer that his chances of being convicted of manslaughter at trial were high, and that he would be sent to prison for many years. On April 21, 1993, Mr. Brant entered a guilty plea to aggravated assault in Belleville and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Four neuropathologists and a biomechanical engineer have since reviewed Dustin’s case. All agree with Dr. Nag’s opinion back in 1993 that Dustin’s death could have been caused by pneumonia. Richard Brant always maintained his innocence to his lawyer, family and friends. In his affidavit filed in the Court of Appeal, he says: “I did not cause Dustin’s death or assault him in any way, and pled guilty because I felt I had no other realistic option. I entered my plea because I feared the consequences of flawed pathology. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have done so. I ask the Court to take the burden of having harmed him from my shoulders.”
_________________________________________________________


"TORONTO - The Crown is conceding that it was a "miscarriage of justice" when a man pleaded guilty in the death of his two-month-old son because of the daunting spectre of testimony from now-disgraced pathologist Charles Smith," the Canadian Press story by reporter Allison Jones published earlier today under the heading, "Crown and defence jointly call for father's acquittal in 1992 infant death," begins.

"Both the Crown and the defence are calling for the Court of Appeal for Ontario to acquit Richard Brant, in light of fresh evidence. The court is scheduled to hear his case Wednesday," the story continues.

"Brant, now 38, was charged in 1993 with manslaughter in his baby's death the previous year. He eventually pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

Brant was taking Dustin for a walk after the boy had been sick for a few days. When he lifted the rain guard on the stroller he was horrified to find Dustin's lifeless body with thick, red foam around his nose, Brant says in an affidavit.

The infant was taken to hospital and died two days later.

While the pathologist who conducted the autopsy listed pneumonia and respiratory failure as causes of death, Smith examined the case and concluded Dustin likely died from Shaken Baby Syndrome.

He maintained he never did anything to intentionally cause Dustin's death, but his lawyer Robert Graydon, now an Ontario Court judge, told him Smith was the "God" of his profession.

With his word against Smith's word, facing a lengthy prison term if convicted, and having just found out his girlfriend was pregnant, Brant pleaded guilty in 1995 to the lesser charge and was sentenced to six months, Brant's lawyer writes in documents filed with the court.

"If I knew then what I know now, I would not have done so," Brant says of his guilty plea in an affidavit. "I ask the court to take the burden of having harmed him from my shoulders."

Once considered an unassailable expert on child forensic pathology, an inquiry found that errors in Smith's work were responsible, in part, for several people being wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for killing children.

In addition to the inquiry coming down hard on Smith, other reports and reviews have noted his errors and his findings have been lambasted numerous times in court in recent years.

His medical licence was revoked earlier this year.

The Crown and defence had experts examine the evidence, and while none of them can eliminate shaking as a possible cause of death, all independently put forward an alternative cause or causes of death, Brant's lawyer James Lockyer writes in court documents.

"The evidence establishes that Dustin likely died of natural causes while in the case of (Brant)," he writes.

The Crown agrees with Lockyer's call for an acquittal, saying in documents filed with the court that with changes in science and forensic pathology, the evidence now can't support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Brant harmed Dustin.

"Fresh evidence establishes that the plea should be set aside as a miscarriage of justice," writes Crown lawyer Alison Wheeler. "The appellant has explained his guilty plea, and there is compelling fresh evidence which now shows that no reasonable jury could convict the appellant of the alleged offence.""

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story can be found at:

http://www.am770chqr.com/News/National/Article.aspx?id=279268

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;