New Jersey Ruling on Shaken Baby Syndrome Evidence | Bloomberg Law

Landmark Shaken Baby Syndrome Ruling

• ⚖️ New Jersey has become the first state to rule that prosecutors cannot build murder cases solely on the medical diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome without further evidence of trauma.
• 💡 The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision blocks the use of shaken baby syndrome as the sole basis for charges when investigations into child deaths lack external signs of abuse, such as bruising or neck damage.
• 🧠 This ruling acknowledges significant conflict within the medical community regarding the reliability of symptoms like brain bleeding or eye bruising as definitive proof of child abuse, as new studies suggest these can be caused by other means.
• 👨‍⚖️ The court's 109-page ruling meticulously reviewed scientific evidence and studies dating back to the 1960s, examining the origins of the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis and its progression through various medical and biomechanical research.
• 🏥 The decision highlights a tension between medical associations advocating for diagnostic tools to protect children and the court's stance that a diagnosis alone is insufficient evidence for criminal charges without corroborating physical evidence.

Fifth Circuit Judicial Trends

• 🏛️ Some senior judges on the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals are issuing rulings that are more moderate and less conservative than typical panel decisions.
• ⚖️ Examples include striking down a Louisiana law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools and ruling against the cancellation of a student drag show at Texas A&M.
• 🧑‍⚖️ The composition of three-judge panels often includes a Trump or Reagan appointee, a more moderate judge, and a senior judge, with senior judges sometimes dissenting against more conservative members.
• 📈 Senior judges, appointed by presidents from different eras, may bring more experience, making them less inclined to drastically alter established legal precedent compared to newer appointees.
• 🚀 The Fifth Circuit sees a high number of cases reaching the US Supreme Court, partly due to dissents and concurring opinions that may flag issues for review, as seen in the groundwork laid for the Dobbs decision.

Agency Power and In-House Judges

• 🏢 The Supreme Court's decision in Jarcusy has created a new legal test, making it tougher for regulatory agencies to use in-house judges for certain cases, requiring them to bring more disputes to federal courts.
• ⚖️ This ruling challenges the long-standing public rights doctrine, which allowed agencies to handle cases internally, by introducing a historical test based on common law actions available at the nation's founding.
• 📊 Despite the new test, agencies have largely prevailed in federal courts, winning 34 out of 38 initial challenges and seven out of nine appeals, suggesting lower courts are struggling to apply the complex historical standard.
• 🔍 Disputes over customer data fines by the FCC and labor protections by the Department of Labor illustrate the difficulty in applying the historical test, leading to split decisions and potential further Supreme Court review.
• ⏳ The shift towards federal courts for certain agency cases is expected to increase court workload and expenses, as jury trials are more time-consuming and costly.

Procedural Errors in Prosecution

• 🚫 A magistrate judge has identified 11 potential mistakes by a prosecutor in the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, including a significant procedural error regarding the grand jury's review of the indictment.
• 📄 The prosecutor, who lacked prior prosecutorial experience, presented an indictment to the grand jury that differed from the final version filed, potentially compromising the entire case.
• ⚖️ A key error involved the prosecutor stating that Comey did not have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that the grand jury could consider the government's intent to present additional evidence at trial.
• ⏳ If deemed a technical violation, the indictment could be cured within six months; however, if viewed as misconduct, the indictment may be dismissed entirely, potentially barring refiling due to the statute of limitations.