and by supporting her life sentence there is absolutely no observable medical evidence in the record to support the testimony of the two corners in this case doctors  massive swelling of the brain both of those conditions in there with a herniation that crushes the brain stem causing death everyone agreed all five experts agreed to these two principal causes of that there were no observable actually colonel or internal injuries to this infant who was seven weeks old when he died that the infant died as a reason well of shaken bab jury it's not often what they had that they were decided on whatever they well information they had what what we are submitting to the court your honor is the fact that there has to be or they should be some basic medical science that supports doctor's conclusion there isn't there was no observable medical evidence in the record out of the keys that seem to me was in this case the prosecution witnesses at the trial involved in the case both testified that this baby died as a result of this was an instantaneous death of the shaking of the child had to be so violent that the baby virtually died instantly and as a result of that instant death there was no observable trauma inside the baby's skull and then the israeli defense witnesses testified there would have to be that and the jury decided in favor of the prosecution carpenter that that was the reason for the baby steps is not supported by any known medical literature or evidence he didn't cite any during the course of his testimony the defense witnesses testified that they course of the autopsy itself this this case with initially been diagnosed as a suitcase and it wasn't until there was a small amount of blood found during the course of the autopsy dr carpenter and dr early change their opinion they both however testified that this small amount of blood that they saw during the course of the autopsy was not cause of death there was not sufficient this was not sufficient bleeding to there was no chance for evidence of trauma to develop it so that if a series that is absolutely unsupported by any known medical evidence they didn't cite any they didn't say here are the documents are here are here is the evidence that we've relied on incoming to this conclusion because there is not all of the known manager of medical literature and they all testified all five experts testified to the fact that take time to develop a matter of hours days sometimes weeks before an infant will die as a result of maybe shaking in this case the testimony of carpenter and early was that this vast was instantaneous in fact what i think the record supports is that this baby died of sids when it's really smith picked up this child at three thirty in the morning she testified that his head flopped back because he had dedicated before she picked him up he was not breathing when the medical  people got to the to the apartment there was no pulse there was no restoration he was dead when she picked him up and she testified in admitted that she she did jostled him to try to get some response from him once you picked him up but that jostling would not have been sufficient to cause the type of injury that carpenter and ehrlich testified to which type of injury that would have there were no broken bones of any kind there was no hemorrhaging there was no retinal hemorrhaging all of the doctor's tests agreed that there was both recent and older bleeding in the child's skull defense present evidence of there was science or scientific books for records or something to support their viewpoint or did they just rely on what the professor said about just have to sit fantasy evidence to support their scientific viewpoint yes i believe you can when you're coming up with a theory which has it which is a novel theory if this was it if they had come into court and testified we saw a massive bleeding and that was the cause of think that there should be some basis in fact for that opinion neither testified that they have ever done an autopsy before in which they personally had observed similar findings similarly they did not testify to any medical literature that they relied upon in coming to this conclusion there simply is not as far as i'm aware when the baby was put to sleep put to sleep that recalls face down on the couch as correct this baby was born a little over five pounds he was underweight two weeks early he was placed he slept the mother placed him on his stomach feeding every two hours with seven weeks old the only reason for this child to wake up in the middle of the night and be fine and upset would be because it's hungry that grandmother mrs smith would not have tried to put this baby back to sleep by shaking it back to sleep the mother was a matter of feet away in the bedroom if the baby was hungry she obviously were just taken the child into the mother and said here is absolves time for him to be fed the state's theory is the baby woke up he was crying he upset mrs smith mr smith got so upset she shook him to death in the middle of the night a seven week old baby who there is no just one basis with this court determine on this record that there was or wasn't a scientific basis for the prosecution doctors testimony because there's nothing in the record t supports their testimony there they did not refer at any time to any medical evidence to support their theory they didn't they wouldn't even ask whether their opinions which they were offering that they offered them based upon a and take that into consideration your research or additional medical documents the court should not and the court obviously is limited to the record that was submitted to the jury all i can offer is that there is no medical journal last year and so on or can the doctor simply express that opinion without stating the basis for in a case such as this where you have five medical experts and only two men two of  have this instantaneous death theory you would think that before a jury would be allowed to decide that this woman is guilty of in effect murder and sentenced her to life in prison that there should be some support for the theory that no other doctor who they base that on the fact that there was no retinal lazing or or or or damage from the brain stem all of the doctors agreed that in seventy five to eighty five percent of all as high as cases there were there was a retinal bleeding and dr seager testified david all of the cases he was aware of in which a baby had died as a result of our shaken baby syndrome one hundred percent of those he observed retinal bleeding this is a doctor who who had performed five to eight thousand autopsies this is hardly someone who is not qualified to offer an the basic medical field with regard to shaken baby syndrome that being these are the types of symptoms that one almost always see in a case in which a evidence comes from dr carpenter who testified to in his experience his training that you can have an instantaneous that from whiplash sharing brain injury now how the brain and suppress the lower case that what dr carpenter was talking about was a shearing of nerves within the brain caused by that whiplash action in other words not of build up of fluid which then consistent with with the other evidence at trial and that's something we really knew that upon his counsel didn't get it that much but you do have everyone's thing up and down this is a healthy baby you know the mom is saying the baby was fine that night there's nothing wrong with for two weeks he was fine and what's kind of interesting to note in this community he talked about the credibility differences and the jury's determination as to you know it's a classic battle of the experts who's right of fact we wish strictly wang the expert down the expert testimony and you know you getting back to your own are talking about t m now the child being being weighed down part of the problem with that is s conjunction with statements to the police in which she is now describing oval i had to shake him of it to get him awake thing she never told her daughter though those statements by appellant were all consistent with the prosecution think you fell down and fell off the couch she tells her daughter oh i got up in the middle of the night he fell on the couch never talking about shaking the social worker after the autopsy results come in confront mr and says hey we think the this claim was raised to the state court we have to give deference to the state courts determination of whether we all agree the supreme court precedent thing jackson versus regina have applied that's exactly what the california court of appeal a different factual scenario this case doesn't present something where no rational jury can find that a seven week old infant who has no neck control whatsoever for the killed by whiplash shaking injury i don't think that experts getting up and saying this is definitely a state's case because there is no indication within the brain of trauma it's exactly the opposite you say well i've got i've got no indication that this child had any brain injury bleeding this from cold bleeding or new bleeding was in any way tied to their instant death theory i would agree with you but they never testified that there was any connection between the old bleeding new bleeding and this instant death theory that did not at any time try to connect those two they didn't say that this was a cause of death they said exactly the opposite of this new pleading and certainly the all bleeding which was anywhere from ninety hours to two weeks old everyone agrees that this was insufficient leading to cause death the doctor says a single excess of five that the c p r that was performed on this it seven week old infant for a period of up to thirty minutes would have been sufficient to cause that bleeding we're talking about less than one tablespoon of blood in this entire infants the skull that's a very small amount of of bleeding when you're talking about sufficient trauma to cause death it was insignificant and all of the doctors agree so to say that there is trauma there for this theory of instant death no observable suring makes sense or is tied together there's just not the record none of carpenter and ehrlich never tried to connect all bleeding new bleeding to their sharing fitter and there is no evidence of shearing absolutely none the brain sufficient evidence to support the conclusion by carpenter three for carpenter to get up and say i know what happened is not sufficient evidence the jury the jury cannot just take that statement alone and that's all there is there's nothing else in the record other than carpenter saying this in my opinion this is what happened i've never seen it before i can't point you to any medical literature that supports this theory but  no he didn't say that does it but there's absolutely nothing in the record supporting that theory and it would seem that if you're going as you as you just postulated if you are going to come up with a new theory something that no one else has heard of before which i base my opinion there is none of that that he doesn't even testify to a reasonable medical certainty that that was the cause of death he just says there is this jury and thing that went on here and that's why the baby died this was a healthy baby healthy babies are babies that are the most are are since basics i mean that's what you know the definition of a said that this is a healthy baby who all of a sudden in the middle of the night goli said he said this child's predisposing factors low birthweight third child to this mother being placed on its stomach all are consistent with sids dr sigler said no i think that the older obviously not but he said that there is insufficient evidence in the record for the corners to come to any conclusion concerning the cause of death this cause this piece should have been reported as undeterm