STORY: "South Dakota Supreme Court hears Joseph Patterson's appeal,"published by KSFY on October 2, 2017.
GIST: "Nearly four years after the death of two-year-old Tyrese Ruffin, the South Dakota Supreme Court heard the appeal arguments of the man convicted of his murder. Monday morning, his defense attorneys laid out their appeal arguments in front of the state’s highest court. “This case really begins on October 9th, 2013,” Patterson’s Defense attorney Ellery Grey said. “911 dispatch receives a frantic call from Mr. Patterson asking for help. He's claiming that a two-year-old boy in his care is choking, he's turning blue and later on in that phone call you can hear Patterson say, I got it. I got the piece of fruit.” Throughout the original jury trial, the defense argued Tyrese Ruffin died from choking on a gummy fruit snack. “ER personnel were immediately suspicious of Patterson’s choking story,” Prosecutor Paul Swedlund said. “T.R. presented with brain bleeding, brain swelling and retinal bleeding, all symptoms of trauma to the head, not choking.” Both the state and the defense presented expert medical witnesses with conflicting testimony about the cause of death. “What would have gotten the jury to decide one way or the other,” Patterson’s defense attorney Michael Butler said. The defense argues the state shouldn't have been allowed to influence the jury with examples of how Patterson disciplined kids in the past. “This argument that because he has once before hit children, therefore he must have the same motive when this happens…the court should reverse on this ground,” Grey said for the defense. The defense also argued those prior acts were used by the prosecution to construct a false narrative about what happened in the time Patterson was left alone with Tyrese. “In that five minutes, the state would say Tyrese pointed at the TV, Tyrese was whining, Tyrese wanted the channel to change, Joe Patterson snapped--none of which there is a factual basis in this record for. That is the absolute misuse of other acts evidence,” Butler said for the defense. Supreme Court Justice Glen Severson questioned the prosecution about the intent of presenting Patterson’s prior history to the jury. “We try people for what they do, not that they're a bad person,” Justice Severson said. But the prosecution said state law allows prior acts to be used to prove motive, absence of accident, intent or identity.........“If they can win the case on their evidence, their medical people, let them, but don’t let them do it this way,” Butler said for the defense. It will likely be several months before the Supreme Court rules on the five issues raised by the defense in Patterson’s appeal."
The entire story can be read at:
http://www.ksfy.com/content/news/South-Dakota-Supreme-Court-hears-Pattersons-appeal-449124633.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/c
