Dorsey was convicted in May 2023 and lost her appeal last June arguing the trial was improperly moved from Cass County where the seven-day trial resulted in a hung jury after the jury voted 10-2 in favor of acquittal. The district court subsequently declared a mistrial.
The State argued for a change of venue citing extensive pretrial publicity on social media which reflected a community deeply divided over the case. The court agreed and the second trial was moved to Pottawattamie county where Dorsey was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in prison with the mandatory 35-years’ prison sentence minimum, the $150,000 restitution penalty, other fines and requirements.
In her appeal, her attorneys also argued that the verdict was not supported by “substantial evidence, evidence of a child’s rib injury was improperly admitted, she was deprived of her right to call witnesses about relevant character traits, and the court erred in denying her motion for a new trial.”
On Friday the Supreme Court, by a 3-2 vote with two justices not participating, agreed the state should not have moved the trial.
“ The district court’s statements during the hearing made it clear that the court was more concerned about logistical issues in completing the trial in the allotted time period than ascertaining whether the State met its burden of showing a substantial likelihood that an impartial jury could not be seated,” the Justices write in the opinion, adding, “We appreciate that the district court judge was “on the ground” in the rural county and likely had a good sense of the general community outlook about this case, particularly following the first trial. But given the length of time between the trials and the thin evidence of prejudicial publicity gathered by the State, the district court had an obligation to try to seat an impartial jury before granting the State’s motion.”
The State also presented evidence of media coverage and social media posts claiming the publicity would make it impossible to get an unbiased jury. The Appeals Court agreed citing that “it is better to err on the side of caution”.
Dorseys attorneys claim the state “essentially engaged in improper jury venue shopping in this case (having seen the results of the first trial in the sanctioned—by rule—county of venue).”
But the court ruled that that publicity surrounding the case was not “pervasive and inflammatory” and that many of the social media posts did not discuss the merits of the case and that the news stories and posts were “predominately factual and no more sensational than the crimes alleged.”
Writing for the dissent, Justice Mcdonald points out Dorsey was given a fair trial though in an adjacent county.
“A clear-eyed assessment of this case shows the district court did not abuse its discretion, and the transfer of venue did not interfere with the fair and impartial administration of justice. There is no federal or state constitutional right at issue. Dorsey was not transported to some remote place beyond the seas to be tried in a foreign land. She was tried in a unified district court in the same judicial district one county west of where the crime occurred under the same law and the same rules of criminal procedure. She was not denied access to legal representation. She was not denied access to her witnesses or her evidence. Dorsey was entitled to a fair trial, and she received one.” he writes in the dissent.
It was unknown if, or when, a new trial will be held."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.swiowanewssource.com/atlantic/article_f38907d4-cf95-11ef-a8dc-773fe9532388.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
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;
