Abstract
For many years now, attorneys have been willing to prosecute, and juries have been willing to convict, people whose only clearly established mistake was caring for a baby that died. Considering the confused state of the medical evidence surrounding SBS, especially since it appears that shaking cannot harm a baby in the manner that has been described for the last thirty years, we should return to the standard proposed in 1962. That is, people should not be accused of child abuse on the basis of subdural hematoma and retinal hemorrhaging alone. Courts should admit, under Daubert, that evidence showing that the two classic medical signs used to show that a child had been deliberately shaken to the point of injury or death (subdural hematoma and retinal hemorrhaging in a child) is insufficient proof that a crime has been committed.
Recommended Citation
Lyons, Genie
(2003)
"Shaken Baby Syndrome: A Questionable Scientific Syndrome and a Dangerous Legal Concept,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2003:
No.
3, Article 9.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2003/iss3/9