PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In his ruling, the U.S. District Court magistrate judge agreed that Stevens' defense attorneys could have used that information to show that the embalming process caused the damage to the eyes. "It is beyond argument that the prosecutor was required to discover and disclose material impeachment evidence — that C.W.'s (the child's) eyes may have been removed after the body was released to the funeral home and embalmed. That did not happen," Bush wrote. Stevens doesn't have to prove that the evidence about the eyes would have convinced the jury to acquit him, only that there was a reasonable probability of a different result, the judge said."
STORY: "Release or Re-Try Man in Idaho Murder Case," by reporter Rebecca Boone (AP) published by U.S. News and World report on February 9, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: "A federal judge says an Idaho man imprisoned for decades in a shaken baby case must be released or given a new trial."
GIST: "U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush ruled Wednesday that
Idaho would have 120 days to either release Edward Stevens or give him a
new trial, in part because prosecutors in Ada County earlier failed to
disclose some favorable evidence to Stevens' defense attorney. The judge also found that investigators failed to
maintain the proper chain of custody for some of the evidence. Chain of
custody rules are intended to ensure that evidence for criminal cases
isn't tampered with. The judge said the prosecutor should have discovered and
disclosed that some of the key evidence used to support the shaken-baby
theory came from tissue samples that may have been damaged by the
embalming process. Prosecutors said Stevens shook the child and hit the
child's head against a bathtub, causing a fatal injury. But Stevens has
maintained the child was injured during an accidental fall down stairs. According to the court documents, Stevens was caring for
his girlfriend's 11-month-old son on Dec. 27, 1996, when the child
sustained a serious head injury and died the next day at a hospital. Stevens told investigators that he was taking a nap and
awoke to a thump, finding that the child had fallen down the stairs. He
said he tried to rouse the child and administered CPR before calling 911
about five minutes later. Prosecutors said they believed Stevens had been abusing
the child for about six months and that he shook the child and slammed
the baby's head against the bathtub. They said he then waited more than a
half-hour before calling 911. Experts and witnesses gave different opinions at Stevens'
trial, some saying the child's body showed clear signs of abuse and
shaking while others said earlier bruises were the kind that many newly
mobile children get and that the injuries could have been caused by a
fall. The most crucial scientific evidence came from an eye
doctor who testified about examining the child's eyes several months
after his death. That doctor stated that internal bleeding and a type of
tissue damage known as "perimacular folds" was present in the eyes,
indicating the child had been badly shaken. But the prosecutors did not disclose that the eyes
weren't removed from the remains during the autopsy, and instead were
collected only after the child's remains had been embalmed. At his trial, Stevens was found guilty of first-degree
murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole. He appealed the case to the Idaho Court of Appeals, but lost —
prompting him to file the appeal in Idaho's U.S. District Court in 2014. In his ruling, the U.S. District Court magistrate judge
agreed that Stevens' defense attorneys could have used that information
to show that the embalming process caused the damage to the eyes. "It is beyond argument that the prosecutor was required
to discover and disclose material impeachment evidence — that C.W.'s
(the child's) eyes may have been removed after the body was released to
the funeral home and embalmed. That did not happen," Bush wrote. Stevens doesn't have to prove that the evidence about the
eyes would have convinced the jury to acquit him, only that there was a
reasonable probability of a different result, the judge said. The Idaho Attorney General's Office, which represented
the state on the case, did not immediately respond to a request for
comment."
The entire story can be read at:
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
