The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Shirley Ree Smith for assault on a child resulting in death.

The incident resulted from allegations of shaken baby syndrome (SBS). Smith was convicted by a jury of killing her grandchild. The California Court of Appeals upheld the convict and the California Supreme refused to review the case. Smith’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the U. S. District Court. But the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction.

The Supreme Court reinstated the conviction finding that while the Ninth Circuit used the correct test it excced its authority in reversing the conviction. It held, as it has in the past that “[a] reviewing court may set aside the jury’s verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the jury.” While there is no doubt that there was sufficient evidence at the trial to find Ms Smith innocent the jury’s verdict cannot be reversed since there was evidence to support its verdict and since reasonable people can disagree on the verdict.

The per curiam opinion is rather pedantry but the dissent by Justice Ginsburg ¹ is more interesting. She argues that the court erred in granting certiorari and that it should never have considered the case. Generally the Supreme Court does not take cases because it feels that the case was wrongly decided. It only takes case where the lower court either used the wrong test or the Supreme Court wants to announce a new rule. In this case the lower court used the correct rule but applied it wrong.

As both the per curiam decision and the dissent point out there is a real question about Smith’s guilt. She spent ten years in prison on a fifteen years to life sentence prior to being released after the Ninth Ciruit reversed the District Court’s denial of habeas corpus. Now, barring a pardon by the governor, she will have to return to prison.

Scientific advances regarding SBS have raised question as to wherther there was sufficient medical evidence for a finding that Ms Smith’s grandchild was a victim of SBS. A prosecution expert testified that “cerebral edema, subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, bleeding at the joints of theback of the neck, bruises on the arms, fractures of the ribs, and internal injuries to the buttocks” are generally present in cases of SBS but few of these could be found on Ms Smith’s grandchild.

Furthermore there was no evidence that Ms Smith who was sleeping on the floor next to the child’s couch showed any anger towards the child and the child’s mother who was in the next room did not notice anything.

Most SBS cases do not involve grandparents, particularly those who are not the primary caretaker of the infant. Current medical thought raises considerable questions regarding whether an infant can be killed from SBS and it is unlikely that the experts who testified for the prosecution would testify in the same way today.

Considering these factors and the fact that the court did not conduct a full inquiry into the case ² Justice Ginsberg argues that justice would have been met if the court allowed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to go unreviewed and to allow Smith to remain in the care of her family.

The jury in the Casey Anthony trial unanimously found her not guilty of the murder of her daughter, Caylee. What does that mean. It does not mean that she is innocent. It merely means that none of the jurors felt that the prosecution had proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact every member of the jury could have believed that she killed her daughter. Alternatively they could have felt that they did not know who killed Caylee. It’s possible that some believed that Casey killed Caylee, but not by a beyond a reasonable doubt standard and others do not know who killed Caylee. Its obvious that the jurors don’t think very highly of Casey. After all they found her guilty of four counts of lying to a police officer. So its obvious that they don’t believe much of what she said. Luckily she did not testify at trial. And probably they did not believe much of what her lawyers said. They did not have much in the way of facts to back up the drowning story or the allegation that the postal employee moved the body.

But the jury did what it was supposed to do. It held the prosecutor to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, And after eleven hours of deliberation it found that there was insufficient evidence to find Casey Anthony guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of her daughter.

No doubt many will be upset with the jury’s decision. Many (including this author) expected a different result. They ignored the discussion of chloroform which was a red herring with no relevance to the case. They looked at the evidence and decided that they could not find Anthony guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is a long tradition in common law jurisdictions. We do not want to punish a person unless the the government can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This is particularly true, in cases like that of Casey Anthony, when the defendant is facing the death penalty. Therefore it is particularly difficult to get a conviction when the only evidence is circumstantial and when the prosecution is unable to show either the method used to kill the victim or even the time when the victim died. Therefore the jury made the right decision.

The jury convicted Barry Bonds of obstruction of justice and it hung on three counts of perjury. The government will have a chance to retry the perjury counts but it may pass on another trial and be satisfied with the obstruction conviction.

The indictment alleged that the obstruction was committed by evasive answers before the Grand Jury. Bond’s legal team has asked Judge Illston to throw out the conviction. Certainly a conviction for being evasive is a lot weaker without any convictions for perjury. The perjury allegations were that Bonds lied before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was investigating BALCO for allegedly providing steroids to sports figures including Bonds. ¹

If Illston does not throw out the conviction there is sure to be an appeal. One question on appeal will probably be the question of whether charging evasive answers meets the preciseness required by due process. Due process requires that charges in a criminal indictment be precise enough to allow a defendant to fight the case and to allow a future court to determine the nature of the charges in order to prevent double jeopardy. The term evasiveness is so vague that it may not meet due process requirements.

Another problem, and this one may face Judge Illston in determining whether to void the conviction, is that the obstruction count charged not only that Bonds was evasive before the jury but that he lied to the jury. Since the jury hung on the perjury charges it is difficult to see how they can convict him on the obstruction count.

In any case its not over until its over and that will be no time soon.

Hadley Jons was kicked off a Macomb County, Michigan jury. During the prosecution case and before hearing all of the evidence she wrote about her jury experience on her Facebook page. She not only wrote about her jury experience but she said that she could not wait to find the defendant guilty. She is now facing contempt of court proceedings.

I cannot imagine how many court orders she has violated. Every judge I know instructs the jury not to discuss the case outside of the jury room until after the verdict is in. They are also instructed not to discuss the trial with anyone but their fellow jurors and then only when they are in the jury room. Perhaps most importantly they are instructed not to make up their minds until all of the evidence is in.

Furthermore it raises the question of whether she discussed her feelings with the other jurors prior to the completion of the testimony. If so she may have tainted their ability to be impartial. Did she make other jurors her Facebood friends. And if so did they see her posting?