Editors note; The 49-page factum (appeal) document can be found at the following link: (HL);
http://indianalawblog.com/documents/Patel%20-%20Apellant%20Brief%20-%2010-2-15.pdf
"Attorneys for a Granger woman sentenced to 20 years for Feticide and Neglect of a Dependent Resulting in Death submitted their appeal Friday, Oct. 2, arguing the St. Joseph County Prosecutor relied on insufficient evidence to reach a conviction. Filing the opening brief of appeal on 35-year-old Purvi Patel's behalf are attorneys Joel Schumm, a law professor at Indiana University and Lawrence Marshall, of Stanford Law School. The case sparked widespread attention by those who see it as a "bellwether" for issues of great significance across the ideological spectrum. However, the attorneys write the appeal requires nothing more than "straightforward application of well-accepted neutral principles of law." As it relates to the Neglect charge, Patel's attorneys claim there are "powerful reasons" to challenge the conclusion that she had a live birth. Even without that, they argue the prosecution failed to prove Patel knew she had a live birth, that there was anything she could've done to reasonably save the child's life and that any failures to act directly resulted in its death. The appeal stipulates multiple errors in the interpretation of Indiana's Feticide Statute, requiring the reversal of Patel's conviction.........In the 49-page brief, Patel's attorneys argued the neglect allegations of the state focused primarily on Patel's omissions by "failing to provide any medical care
for that dependent immediately after the dependent's birth" resulting in its death. They argue there was no evidence that an infant
born at this gestational age and size would have, during its minute of
life, breathed in a discernible way or moved or cried or shown any other
sign of life detectable to the naked eye. Patel's attorneys contend she
did not anticipate delivering a child of a viable age and therefore was
not negligent in not seeking medical assistance. "Obviously, a 911 call would not result in
paramedics arriving in a minute or less. Failure to take a futile act
does not constitute endangerment," Patel's attorneys wrote. The appeal calls the state's use of Indiana's
Feticide Statute "absurd," and argues that it was designed to protect
pregnant women from violent attacks and not criminalize even unlawful
abortions performed with the mother's consent. "If the Feticide Statute were to apply to
unlawful abortions, each and every one of these would automatically
constitute Feticide...punishable by 6-20 years imprisonment," the brief
lays out, "Thus, a prosecutor would have absolute discretion to bring a
Feticide charge and secure a sentence of up to 20 years, as compared to
an infraction, misdemeanor, or lesser-class felony as set forth in the
Unlawful Abortion Statute.""http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Purvi-Patels-attorneys-file-appeal-for-Feticide-and-Neglect-convictions-330969522.html
See VICE story: "How Personhood Laws Can Land Women in Court for Crimes Against Their Own Fetuses."..."Patel's case may be an anomaly, but it reflects a nationwide climate in which the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that fetuses are not separate people with separate rights is routinely challenged. Restrictions to abortion have spiked in recent years. "We are seeing an extraordinary backlash against women's equality and status as constitutional persons," said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), adding that anti-abortion measures defining life as beginning with conception "are providing the grounds for locking pregnant women up.":
