Bulletin: Purvi Patel: Indiana; Sentenced to serve 20 years in prison in connection with her own miscarriage, her fate is now in the hands of the Indiana Court of Appeals..."Though Patel's attorneys previously argued in court documents that many of the most contentious issues raised by the case did not need to factor into her appeal, the judges on Monday seemed unafraid to wade into discussion about Indiana's decades-old feticide law, and whether its use in Patel's case could leave other pregnant women at risk for prosecution. They questioned whether a pregnant woman's use of seemingly harmful substances could leave her open to a similar scenario should something go wrong. "One pack of cigarettes a day, or a fifth of whiskey a day?" Judge L. Mark Bailey asked. "I mean, what is it that we're going to start prosecuting here?" It's unclear when the panel will deliver its ruling or what that decision may look like. But national women's advocacy groups and legal experts say they're keeping a close watch on Patel's case."..."Patel's actions fell within the scope of Indiana's feticide law, argued Deputy Attorney General Ellen Meilaender. "It's the defendant's failure to seek medical treatment, to provide that care for the baby, that led to all of the things that resulted in the baby's death," Meilaender said, citing trial testimony from doctors that the child's heart was beating and that it had taken a breath. "The jury could reasonably infer that somebody who was holding a live baby in her hands would be aware that it was alive." But the judges pressed Meilaender repeatedly about what evidence proved Patel's awareness of the child's condition — an issue they said was a crucial component of the appeal. Said Vaidik: "This is what the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: that she knew that this baby was breathing and alive." Indianapolis Star;

"The fate of a Northern Indiana woman sentenced to serve 20 years in prison in connection with her own miscarriage  Attorneys for Purvi Patel sought Monday to overturn her 2015 convictions of feticide and neglect of a dependent. While the state's interpretation of its feticide law has drawn national interest in the case, Monday's hearing heavily focused on the evidence used to secure Patel's convictions, including whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the Granger woman knew her child had been born alive. According to court documents, Patel sought medical help at St. Joseph Hospital in July 2013 after delivering a child at home. When pressed by doctors about her condition, Patel told them she had delivered a stillborn child and discarded the body in a dumpster. Prosecutors, however, alleged at trial that Patel had ordered abortifacients online and that her child was born alive On Monday, Patel's attorney, Lawrence Marshall, outlined his case for appeal. "The evidence in this case was not there whatsoever," said Patel's attorney, Lawrence Marshall. "Not a single expert ever said — in any sort of declarative way — that yes, this infant would have survived had Ms. Patel done differently." Critics of Patel's convictions argue that the feticide charge was never intended to be used against a pregnant woman, but was instead meant to punish illegal abortion providers. Patel was the first Indiana woman to be convicted of feticide in connection with her own miscarriage. Patel's attorney, Marshall, lambasted the state's use of the feticide statute in court. He said the law has no role in criminalizing unlawful abortion and never should have been applied in Patel's case. Marshall also took issue with the prosecution's case for neglect, which he said they failed to make at trial. The state, he said, never asked its experts if his client's child would have made any noise or shown any visible signs of life that would signal to Patel that the baby was not stillborn. Nor did prosecutors ever present any evidence that the baby would have survived had the baby been taken to a hospital, he added. But the three-judge panel questioned Marshall about the importance of the child's survival as a factor in the case, and whether it mattered that the baby, which was born several weeks prematurely. "What we're looking at is like a murder," Judge Nancy Vaidik said. "Someone is about ready to die of cancer, and someone shoots them. That person is guilty of murder. I mean, we don't say, 'Oh, they only had another five hours to live.' And that's what I'm struggling with." The state, meanwhile, said the evidence presented at Patel's 2015 criminal trial was enough to support her convictions. Patel's actions fell within the scope of Indiana's feticide law, argued Deputy Attorney General Ellen Meilaender. "It's the defendant's failure to seek medical treatment, to provide that care for the baby, that led to all of the things that resulted in the baby's death," Meilaender said, citing trial testimony from doctors that the child's heart was beating and that it had taken a breath. "The jury could reasonably infer that somebody who was holding a live baby in her hands would be aware that it was alive." But the judges pressed Meilaender repeatedly about what evidence proved Patel's awareness of the child's condition — an issue they said was a crucial component of the appeal. Said Vaidik: "This is what the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: that she knew that this baby was breathing and alive.".........Though Patel's attorneys previously argued in court documents that many of the most contentious issues raised by the case did not need to factor into her appeal, the judges on Monday seemed unafraid to wade into discussion about Indiana's decades-old feticide law, and whether its use in Patel's case could leave other pregnant women at risk for prosecution. They questioned whether a pregnant woman's use of seemingly harmful substances could leave her open to a similar scenario should something go wrong. "One pack of cigarettes a day, or a fifth of whiskey a day?" Judge L. Mark Bailey asked. "I mean, what is it that we're going to start prosecuting here?" It's unclear when the panel will deliver its ruling or what that decision may look like. But national women's advocacy groups and legal experts say they're keeping a close watch on Patel's case."
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/05/23/hearing-monday-woman-appealing-feticide-conviction/84660094/