The Michigan Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Adam Stevens on July 23, 2015. He had been convicted of second degree murder in the death of his 3 month old son, Kian Stevens, on August 19, 2010 in Jackson Michigan.
This was a short fall case in a 3 month old with a radiology report that suggested a pre-existing chronic SDH (there was evidence of bleeding that was weeks or months old). The child had a cephalohematoma at birth (a deep bruise under the scalp) indicating some degree of birth trauma. The child was pulled off the couch by a sibling a week before his death and was vomiting for two days before his death. The autopsy showed the baby had bronchopneumonia, which in this situation was probably due to aspiration of some of the vomit. Vomiting is a classic sign of increased pressure in the head. All of this indicates that whatever happened to the baby did not start shortly before his death when he was in his father's care.
The amount of bleeding was very small, only 10 cc (one third of a fluid ounce). The child abuse pediatrician noted in her testimony that the child seemed to be doing more poorly than she would have expected from the small amount of bleeding.
The paramedics also intubated the esophagus. Which means the baby was not getting oxygen in his lungs for the entire time it took to get him to the hospital and for the ER doctors to recognize the mistake and put in a new tube. It is almost certain that would have left the child brain dead regardless of whatever injuries he had. This is almost certainly why the baby was doing more poorly than would be expected from the small amount of bleeding.
The court had agreed to hear an appeal based upon the conduct of the judge in questioning the defenses expert witness. The decision was unanimous and the opinion was written by Justice Bernstein.
“A judge’s conduct pierces the veil of judicial impartiality and violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial when, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is reasonably likely that the judge’s conduct improperly influenced the jury by creating the appearance of advocacy or partiality against a party.”
Here as some examples of the Judge’s questioning;
THE COURT: But Dr. Shuman, as I understand it, you're an assistant pathologist, correct, you're not the pathologist at Dade County are you?
THE WITNESS: That's correct. We have - we have a district medical examiner, that's Dr. Hyma, my boss, and he appoints associates.
THE COURT: Okay, well how - how many associate pathologists are there in Dade County?
THE WITNESS: Right now there are four others.
THE COURT: Would - would you consider any of your associate pathologists in - not qualified to testify in any of the courts that they work in in Dade County -
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Your Honor, I guess my objection to my question to the Court is, this Court has endorsed this witness as an expert.
THE COURT: I understand -
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Clearly -
THE COURT: -- but - but -
MR. KIRKPATRICK: - the prosecution had an opportunity to voir dire -
THE COURT: - Mr. Kirkpatrick - Mr. Kirkpatrick, if I have a question I can ask a question, all right?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: (No audible response).
THE COURT: So - so Dr. Shuman, are there any of the assistant pathologists that you work with that you would consider unqualified to testify in the fields of forensic pathology?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Are there any assistant pathologists, as an example, that you think that work for Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, as far as you know that would be unqualified to testify?
THE WITNESS: Not unqualified but maybe not willing.
THE COURT: Okay, and all things being equal do you think a head pathologist is more qualified to testify by way of experience or do you think an assistant pathologist is more qualified to testify by way of experience?
THE WITNESS: I - I wouldn't make that determination based on just being a head versus an assistant.
THE COURT: Okay. All things being equal would you agree with me that - that generally head pathologists reach the top of their profession because they have the most experience or the least experience?
THE WITNESS: Well no, no. I mean, it ~ I know pathologists that are head pathologists that have less experience than I do.
THE COURT: Okay, does your head pathologist of Dade County have more or less experience than you do?
THE WITNESS: He has more.
THE COURT: He has what?
And in another exchange;
THE COURT: Would you be surprised if I told you that an expert didn't testify in this case that infant's brain was sloshing around like an egg?
THE WITNESS: I saw Dr. Mohr's testimony, she said the brain sloshed around.
THE COURT: Okay, so you think because one pediatrician said that, that that's - that that's just your opinion, correct?
THE WITNESS: I'm just trying to educate the jury on that's not how it works.
THE COURT: Okay. And now, you would agree with me that other pathologists might have very different views than your - (inaudible) - correct? Or incorrect? Do you think that there's other doctors that might have different views of the vulnerability of the child's brain versus an adult brain, or would you say that there's a consensus in the medical community of that?
THE WITNESS: Well, I think there's - there's people who may disagree with that. I think that the - the main issue is, is the infant is much more susceptible to impact injury.
THE COURT: I have another question for you. Have you ever traveled so far to testify?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, how often and how far did you go?
THE WITNESS: Well, I've testified in -
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: No, Mr. Kirkpatrick, you may not. I have some questions, I'm answering (ph).
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Well, your Honor, just for the record I believe that that particular question is inappropriate. I - it's clear that this is a court appointed medical examiner. The fact that he traveled from Florida to Michigan has absolutely no bearing in this case. But certainly. Doctor, you can --
THE COURT: Your exception's noted, Mr. Kirkpatrick
With this decision the Michigan Supreme Court has defined a new standard for assessing when a judge’s questioning can deprive a defendant of their constitutional right to a fair trial.
This was a short fall case in a 3 month old with a radiology report that suggested a pre-existing chronic SDH (there was evidence of bleeding that was weeks or months old). The child had a cephalohematoma at birth (a deep bruise under the scalp) indicating some degree of birth trauma. The child was pulled off the couch by a sibling a week before his death and was vomiting for two days before his death. The autopsy showed the baby had bronchopneumonia, which in this situation was probably due to aspiration of some of the vomit. Vomiting is a classic sign of increased pressure in the head. All of this indicates that whatever happened to the baby did not start shortly before his death when he was in his father's care.
The amount of bleeding was very small, only 10 cc (one third of a fluid ounce). The child abuse pediatrician noted in her testimony that the child seemed to be doing more poorly than she would have expected from the small amount of bleeding.
The paramedics also intubated the esophagus. Which means the baby was not getting oxygen in his lungs for the entire time it took to get him to the hospital and for the ER doctors to recognize the mistake and put in a new tube. It is almost certain that would have left the child brain dead regardless of whatever injuries he had. This is almost certainly why the baby was doing more poorly than would be expected from the small amount of bleeding.
The court had agreed to hear an appeal based upon the conduct of the judge in questioning the defenses expert witness. The decision was unanimous and the opinion was written by Justice Bernstein.
“A judge’s conduct pierces the veil of judicial impartiality and violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial when, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is reasonably likely that the judge’s conduct improperly influenced the jury by creating the appearance of advocacy or partiality against a party.”
Here as some examples of the Judge’s questioning;
THE COURT: But Dr. Shuman, as I understand it, you're an assistant pathologist, correct, you're not the pathologist at Dade County are you?
THE WITNESS: That's correct. We have - we have a district medical examiner, that's Dr. Hyma, my boss, and he appoints associates.
THE COURT: Okay, well how - how many associate pathologists are there in Dade County?
THE WITNESS: Right now there are four others.
THE COURT: Would - would you consider any of your associate pathologists in - not qualified to testify in any of the courts that they work in in Dade County -
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Your Honor, I guess my objection to my question to the Court is, this Court has endorsed this witness as an expert.
THE COURT: I understand -
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Clearly -
THE COURT: -- but - but -
MR. KIRKPATRICK: - the prosecution had an opportunity to voir dire -
THE COURT: - Mr. Kirkpatrick - Mr. Kirkpatrick, if I have a question I can ask a question, all right?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: (No audible response).
THE COURT: So - so Dr. Shuman, are there any of the assistant pathologists that you work with that you would consider unqualified to testify in the fields of forensic pathology?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Are there any assistant pathologists, as an example, that you think that work for Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, as far as you know that would be unqualified to testify?
THE WITNESS: Not unqualified but maybe not willing.
THE COURT: Okay, and all things being equal do you think a head pathologist is more qualified to testify by way of experience or do you think an assistant pathologist is more qualified to testify by way of experience?
THE WITNESS: I - I wouldn't make that determination based on just being a head versus an assistant.
THE COURT: Okay. All things being equal would you agree with me that - that generally head pathologists reach the top of their profession because they have the most experience or the least experience?
THE WITNESS: Well no, no. I mean, it ~ I know pathologists that are head pathologists that have less experience than I do.
THE COURT: Okay, does your head pathologist of Dade County have more or less experience than you do?
THE WITNESS: He has more.
THE COURT: He has what?
And in another exchange;
THE COURT: Would you be surprised if I told you that an expert didn't testify in this case that infant's brain was sloshing around like an egg?
THE WITNESS: I saw Dr. Mohr's testimony, she said the brain sloshed around.
THE COURT: Okay, so you think because one pediatrician said that, that that's - that that's just your opinion, correct?
THE WITNESS: I'm just trying to educate the jury on that's not how it works.
THE COURT: Okay. And now, you would agree with me that other pathologists might have very different views than your - (inaudible) - correct? Or incorrect? Do you think that there's other doctors that might have different views of the vulnerability of the child's brain versus an adult brain, or would you say that there's a consensus in the medical community of that?
THE WITNESS: Well, I think there's - there's people who may disagree with that. I think that the - the main issue is, is the infant is much more susceptible to impact injury.
THE COURT: I have another question for you. Have you ever traveled so far to testify?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, how often and how far did you go?
THE WITNESS: Well, I've testified in -
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: No, Mr. Kirkpatrick, you may not. I have some questions, I'm answering (ph).
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Well, your Honor, just for the record I believe that that particular question is inappropriate. I - it's clear that this is a court appointed medical examiner. The fact that he traveled from Florida to Michigan has absolutely no bearing in this case. But certainly. Doctor, you can --
THE COURT: Your exception's noted, Mr. Kirkpatrick
With this decision the Michigan Supreme Court has defined a new standard for assessing when a judge’s questioning can deprive a defendant of their constitutional right to a fair trial.
RSS Feed
