Tuesday, November 9, 2021

Jeremy Marquez: Wisconsin: Shaken baby syndrome trial under way, as Reporter Dee Hölzel reports in the Journal Times, in a story headed, "What killed baby A.H.? Racine prosecutors believe he was shaken; defense says illness."..."Jeremy Marquez's baby son died. Now, he may go to prison, depending on who the jury believes. Was the son abused? Or was it meningitis or some other illness? A mistake by medical staff may also have doomed baby A.H."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The trial was delayed  earlier today (Tuesday) after a juror tested positive for COVID-19, but was able to resume after all the other jurors tested negative. The trial was winding down at the time of the delay:  Both sides had rested and were prepared to deliver their closing statements. I am following developments: HL;

-------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In the case of A.H., there were no apparent injuries to suggest someone grabbed the baby and shook him. There were no fingermarks on his tiny body indicative of being held and shaken with force. The signs of injury are all internal and resulted in bleeding on the brain and on the eyes. Doctors testified for the prosecution that the internal injuries to A.H. were the classic signs of abusive head trauma. Referred to as the triad, the three injuries most associated with abusive head trauma are swelling of the brain, subdural hematoma (blood building up on the surface of the brain), and bleeding in the retinas of the eyes. However, doctors testifying for the defense countered those injuries could stem from a number of causes, which are being considered in light of the absence of a pattern of abuse and the baby’s underlying health issues. This case is medically complicated, and it’s more complicated after medical staff tasked with treating the dying baby made a crucial mistake. What will the jury do when the scientists themselves have not reached consensus?"

-------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "What killed baby A.H.? Racine prosecutors believe he was shaken; defense says illness," by Reporter Dee Hölzel, published by The Journal Times on November 8, 2021.

SUB-HEADING: "Jeremy Marquez's baby son died. Now, he may go to prison, depending on who the jury believes. Was the son abused? Or was it meningitis or some other illness? A mistake by medical staff may also have doomed baby A.H."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Dr. Evan Matches, a forensic pathologist with NAAG Pathology Labs, explains the human brain to the court last week during Jeremy Marquez's homicide trial in the death of his infant son.


STORY:  What killed baby A.H.?


That is the underlying issue in a homicide trial currently underway in Racine County Circuit Court, where a jury must decide if A.H. died from injuries when he was allegedly shaken by his father, Jeremy Marquez, or whether the baby died from other causes.


The jury was seated on Nov. 1 and have listened to a week of testimony. The trial is to resume today.


Abuse from shaking was referred to as “shaken baby syndrome” when The Journal Times first reported on this case, but doctors now more commonly refer to it as “abusive head trauma.”

In some cases where a baby has died of abusive head trauma, there is a pattern of abuse; other bruises and sometimes fractured bones are often found.


In the case of A.H., there were no apparent injuries to suggest someone grabbed the baby and shook him. There were no fingermarks on his tiny body indicative of being held and shaken with force.


The signs of injury are all internal and resulted in bleeding on the brain and on the eyes.

Doctors testified for the prosecution that the internal injuries to A.H. were the classic signs of abusive head trauma.


Referred to as the triad, the three injuries most associated with abusive head trauma are swelling of the brain, subdural hematoma (blood building up on the surface of the brain), and bleeding in the retinas of the eyes.


However, doctors testifying for the defense countered those injuries could stem from a number of causes, which are being considered in light of the absence of a pattern of abuse and the baby’s underlying health issues.


This case is medically complicated, and it’s more complicated after medical staff tasked with treating the dying baby made a crucial mistake.

What will the jury do when the scientists themselves have not reached consensus?


Case history


Jeremy Marquez, 27, is charged with reckless homicide for the 2019 death of his 3-month old son, A.H. (The Journal Times is not publishing the name of the deceased child.)


Marquez is accused of shaking his son, causing damage to the baby’s brain that led to his death. Marquez denied the accusations and maintains his innocence.


Marquez was caring for his son on Feb. 22, 2019 while the baby’s mother was out for the day.

Shortly before 3 p.m., he called the baby’s mother to say the infant was not breathing. She called 911.


Officers from the Racine Police Department were dispatched to the duplex where the baby lived with his mother.


At the door, they were met by Marquez, who handed over A.H. The officers began infant CPR until paramedics arrived and took over.


Paramedics intubated the baby but, according to courtroom testimony, the tube was placed incorrectly, so oxygen was actually pushed into his stomach, not his lungs.


The infant underwent 45 minutes of CPR.


A.H. was taken first to Ascension All-Saints Hospital and then transferred to Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin in Wauwatosa.


Two tests confirm A.H. was brain dead. He was kept alive on life support until his organs could be donated.


Marquez was interviewed by RPD officers almost immediately after the baby was transported. The taped interview was shown to the jury.


In the interview, Marquez described the events that day.


He told police the baby was fussy, hot and sweating so profusely Marquez had to change his clothes. He tried three times to feed the baby, but A.H. kept throwing up his formula.


He told the police he thought something was wrong with the baby, perhaps a stomachache.

A.H. was born with a formula intolerance, and he threw up frequently until his mother found a soy formula he would tolerate. Further, he was recovering from RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and reportedly had a persistent cough."


The entire story can be read at:


https://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/what-killed-baby-a-h-racine-prosecutors-believe-he-was-shaken-defense-says-illness/article_ffd369f9-3db2-5117-a27d-e752c8a0d8ff.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/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;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL, FINAL, FINAL WORD: "It is incredibly easy to convict an innocent person, but it's exceedingly difficult to undo such a devastating injustice. 
Jennifer Givens: DirectorL UVA Innocence Project.