Since 2014, 27 people convicted in SBS/AHT cases have been exonerated, according to the National Registry of Exonerations.
Last year, in a first-of-its-kind decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court banned testimony on SBS from the state’s courtrooms. In July, in another Georgia case, Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Kimberly A. Gallant granted Danyel Smith’s request for a new trial, noting SBS/AHT is no longer treated as a “presumptive diagnosis,” and that “current medical and scientific standards” require providers to consider “alternative, non-abusive causes before concluding abuse.” (Danyel is also represented by the Southern Center for Human Rights. He and Katie are not related.)
“Today, the diagnostic approach is different,” Katie’s attorney, Loudon-Brown, told Truthout. “You might keep the idea of non-accidental trauma in your head, but you would have to go further. You would have to look at what’s going on with Tucker.”
The headline sounds wrong to me — it’s not that shaking babies is not dangerous (that’s not mentioned one way or the other), it’s that evidence used in courts to identify SBS is being found invalid, exonerating some cases that sound like heartbreaking miscarriages of justice.
That’s the only reason I came into this comment section. I read that and was thinking that shaking a baby is definitely dangerous. Gotta love shit headlines.