Amicus Brief: Chazlee Lemons 2022
People of the STate of Michigan v. Chazlee Lemons
Filing Date
March 29, 2022
Charge
First-Degree Murder
Jurisdiction
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Partners
Summary
CIFS filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan in Chazlee Lemons’ case to ask the court to review this case in order to address the Court of Appeals’ improper reliance on insufficient and uncertain forensic testimony and evidence, to clarify the admissibility of biomechanical engineering testimony, to clarify the appropriate use of medical opinion evidence in determining causation, and to clarify the difference between medical data and confession data.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Beginning in the 1970s, parents and caregivers have been accused of abuse and homicide based on a collection of medical findings in their charges, specifically, subdural bleeding (bleeding beneath the brain’s coverings), retinal bleeding (bleeding at the back of the eyes), and encephalopathy (brain swelling and dysfunction). Collectively, these findings are referred to as “Shaken Baby Syndrome” or “Abusive Head Trauma” (SBS/AHT). Despite previous certainty about this diagnosis— physicians previously assumed that the presence of these findings pointed unerringly to shaking or other abuse—evidence has amassed in the recent past that suggests these findings are not always explained by abuse or even trauma; accidents can cause these findings, as can a wide variety of nontraumatic conditions, including genetic disorders, bleeding disorders, and infection. As alternative causes of these medical findings have emerged, so, too, has a realization that the hypothesis rests on extremely problematic foundations. Now, we know that not only do the findings previously thought to be diagnostic of shaking have explanations other than child abuse, but we are also aware that very little is known about the pathophysiology of the findings in general. Like so many forensic science theories, SBS/AHT was deployed in courtrooms without sufficient foundational validity, and experts testified about it with more certainty than the theory warranted. And, as a result of this flawed hypothesis, wrongful convictions— like Chazlee Lemons’ —proliferated.
Amicus asks this Court to review this case in order to address the Court of Appeals’ improper reliance on insufficient and uncertain forensic testimony and evidence, to clarify the admissibility of biomechanical engineering testimony, to clarify the appropriate use of medical opinion evidence in determining causation, and to clarify the difference between medical data and confession data.