PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "After two trials in San Diego Superior Court, Johnson was found guilty of assault on a child causing death. She was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. She has served 22 years.
Her case has since been taken up by the California Innocence Project, based at California Western School of Law in San Diego. In 2015, she was among a dozen inmates dubbed “the California 12,” for whom the Innocence Project had asked the governor to grant clemency. They argued that she was convicted on “now-discredited circumstantial scientific evidence.”
-------------
-------------
STORY: "Governor commutes sentence of former North Park caregiver convicted in infant’s 1997 death" by reporter Teri Figueroa, published by The San Diego Union-Tribune on March 23, 2020.
bune)
bune)
SUB-HEADING: "Suzanne Johnson has long maintained her innocence in the death of a 6-month-old girl in her care."
Her case has since been taken up by the California Innocence Project, based at California Western School of Law in San Diego. In 2015, she was among a dozen inmates dubbed “the California 12,” for whom the Innocence Project had asked the governor to grant clemency. They argued that she was convicted on “now-discredited circumstantial scientific evidence.” In his Friday letter ordering that Johnson be granted parole, Newsom acknowledged that she has been “committed to her rehabilitation,” had not been in trouble and took part in significant self-help programming. “The act of clemency does not minimize or forgive her conduct or the harm it caused,” Newsom’s letter reads. “It does recognized the work she has done since to transform herself.""
The entire story can be read at:governor-commutes-sentence-of-former-north-park-caregiver-convicted-in-infants-1997-death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Read the The California Innocence Project's account of her story at the link below: "In 1989, Suzanne Johnson became an at-home, licensed, daycare provider in San Diego, California. By her clients’ accounts, she was an excellent daycare provider. Clients, family, and friends described her as “caring,” “remarkably calm,” “real loving,” “courteous,” “professional,” “really kind,” “lovely,” “even tempered,” “warm,” and “friendly.” To those who knew her, Suzanne could never become angry enough to hurt a child.
On June 24, 1997, Suzanne called 911 to report that Jasmine, a baby in her care, had gone limp and was struggling to breathe. Earlier in the day, Suzanne had put Jasmine in a high chair and accidentally tipped it over, causing Jasmine to fall and hit her head on the floor. Jasmine initially appeared to be fine. However, when Suzanne tried to feed Jasmine an hour or two later, the baby vomited and went comatose. Unbeknownst to Suzanne, Jasmine suffered another blow to her head a few weeks prior while in the care of her parents when she accidentally fell off the couple’s bed. She suffered a skull fracture from that prior fall and the fall from the high chair only exacerbated Jasmine’s injuries. Rescue workers responded, but were unable to resuscitate her. Jasmine later died at the hospital.
Immediately, the police treated Suzanne’s home as a crime scene and treated her as a suspect in Jasmine’s death. The medical examiner told officers Jasmine’s injuries were not consistent with Suzanne’s version of events and claimed Jasmine had intentionally been abused and that abuse caused her death. Soon thereafter, criminal proceedings commenced against Suzanne.
The prosecution tried the case on the theory that Suzanne was upset because she had not been paid and Jasmine was a difficult child who cried all the time. Five experts testified for the prosecution that Jasmine’s death was not an accident, as Suzanne claimed, and instead was a product of deliberate abuse. Two experts testified for the defense, but never concluded that Suzanne’s story had any medically substantiated credibility. Indeed, one of the defense experts openly agreed with whatever findings one of the prosecution’s experts came to, due to that expert’s renowned reputation in the field.
The prosecution’s experts testified that Jasmine suffered the “triad” of symptoms associated with abuse cases: (1) retinal hemorrhaging [bleeding in the eyes]; (2) subdural hemorrhaging [bleeding in the brain]; and (3) cerebral edema [swelling of the brain]. Jasmine also had an impact injury which the experts claimed was diagnostic of Suzanne having deliberately killed Jasmine by violently shaking her and slamming her against a hard object. They testified that someone is incapable of appearing normal for any measure of time after a serious brain and skull injury (known as a “lucid interval”) and each one of the prosecution’s experts testified Jasmine would have been immediately comatose after her injuries, thus discrediting Suzanne’s claim that Jasmine first went comatose hours after the fall. The experts discounted the plausibility that Jasmine’s prior head injury could have contributed to her death. They explained that the force necessary to produce the injuries observed was substantial, equivalent to a car accident or fall from a building. One of the experts testified that the presence of red neurons in Jasmine’s brain indicated she had been comatose for hours before Suzanne called 911. Thus, the scientific testimony definitively disproved Suzanne’s story about Jasmine accidentally falling. After two jury trials, the first resulting in a hung jury, Suzanne would find herself convicted of assault on a child causing death. She was given a life sentence.
Years later, the science of forensic pediatric pathology relative to the diagnoses of “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS), “Shaken Baby Impact Syndrome” (SBIS), “Non-Accidental Head Trauma” (NAHT), and “Abusive Head Trauma” (AHT) would change dramatically in Suzanne’s favor, adding credence to her version of events. Much of the expert testimony that formed the basis of Suzanne’s conviction has now been scientifically proven to be invalidated and unreliable. In light of what is now known, the prosecution’s experts were wrong in concluding that Suzanne’s account did not match Jasmine’s injuries. For example, the “triad” of symptoms is no longer considered to be diagnostic of abuse; a child can appear normal after serious brain and skull injuries; minimal force is needed to inflict serious head injuries in infants, and a prior head injury makes the force required even less; and red neurons can appear in the brain sooner than previously thought.
It is also known that other conditions, such as the birthing process, hepatitis immunization, and the effects of CPR, can result in the triad of symptoms. Jasmine received her hepatitis immunization three days before her death and was administered CPR by Suzanne, by the paramedics, and by doctors at the hospital. It is also now known that a short fall, like a fall from a high chair, can result in trauma sufficient to cause an infant’s death. Death from a short fall injury is more probable when an infant has a previous skull injury, such as what happened to Jasmine. In fact, when Jasmine fell from her high chair, she already had an existing skull fracture that had occurred months earlier. The preexisting skull fracture was confirmed by Jasmine’s failure to thrive, physical discomfort, feeding problems, constant crying, and by autopsy findings.
To make matters worse, the California Innocence Project (CIP) uncovered evidence that, during resuscitation efforts, the breathing tube was erroneously shoved down “the wrong hole,” pumping air into Jasmine’s stomach instead of her lungs. This deprived Jasmine of oxygen, exacerbating her injuries, and ultimately guaranteeing that Jasmine could not be resuscitated and was condemned to die. All of the experts at Suzanne’s trial ignored the fact that the breathing tube down was placed down the wrong hole and caused, or at the minimum, contributed to her death. Further, in an enhanced version of the 911 tape, one can hear Jasmine struggling to breathe when Suzanne called 911, dispelling the notion that Jasmine had been dead long before Suzanne called 911.
Suzanne’s conviction is no longer substantiated by the former scientific testimony and her version of events is entirely consistent with Jasmine’s injuries. Jasmine’s injuries were the result of a tragic accident. CIP has filed numerous post-conviction petitions on Suzanne’s behalf, without success. She has exhausted her state remedies and is preparing to ask the federal courts for relief. In the meantime, CIP has asked the governor to commute her sentence and her clemency application is still pending."
https://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/suzanne-johnson/------------------------------------------------------------------
"California Innocence) Project attorneys also won commutation for David Jassy, a Swedish citizen convicted of second-degree murder in Los Angeles County. Semanchik said Jassy may get out soon and has agreed to immediate voluntary deportation back to Sweden.” (Reporter Pauline Repard: St. Diego Tribune): Jassy, a Swedish citizen, was in Los Angeles for an extended business trip. He was driving in his rented SUV with his girlfriend in the passenger seat. When David’s car stopped past a stop sign, and partially into a crosswalk, pedestrian John Ones got upset because David’s car almost hit him. Ones slapped David’s car and yelled something at David and his girlfriend. David got out of the car and a physical altercation ensued. Ones later died from hitting his head on the ground and from the impact of David’s SUV as David sped away in fear. Although David takes responsibility for the fight, he has always maintained he did not intend to kill Ones, and had no idea his SUV ran over Ones’s body until police told him. (California Innocence Project);
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
