Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01036/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01036-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUZANNE K. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

JANEL ESPINOZA, Warden et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO DISMISS AND GRANTING 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Suzanne K. Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). 

Johnson contends her due process rights have been violated because the scientific 

evidence introduced at her trial has now been discredited and was false. (Pet., ECF No. 1

at 133-62.) She also contends trial counsel was ineffective. (Id. at 162-67.) Respondent 

has filed a Motion to Dismiss on timeliness grounds, and Johnson has filed an 

Opposition. (ECF Nos. 8, 11.) 

The Court has read and considered the Petition, [ECF No. 1], the Motion to 

Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion to Dismiss 

[ECF No. 8, 8-1], the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11], the lodgments 

and other documents filed in this case, and the legal arguments presented by both parties. 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 45
2

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss and 

DISMISSES the case with prejudice. The Court GRANTS a Certificate of 

Appealability.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 19, 1999, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office filed an 

Amended Information charging Suzanne Kathryn Johnson with one count of assault on a 

child resulting in death, a violation of California Penal Code § 273ab. (Lodgment No. 3 

vol. 1, ECF No. 9-25 at 45.) Following a jury trial, Johnson was convicted of the sole 

count before the jury. (Id. at 127.) She was sentenced to twenty-five years-to-life in 

prison. (Lodgment No. 3 vol. 2, ECF No. 9-28 at 29.)

Johnson appealed her conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 

which upheld her conviction. (Lodgment No. 7, ECF No. 9-32.) Johnson filed a petition 

for review in the California Supreme Court, which summarily denied the petition. 

(Lodgment Nos. 8-9, ECF Nos. 33-34.)

In 2015, Johnson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Diego 

Superior Court and the state court issued an Order to Show Cause. (Lodgment Nos. 10-

13, ECF Nos. 9-35–9-38.) Following this briefing, the state superior court issued an 

Opinion and Order denying the petition. (Lodgment No. 14, ECF No. 9-39.)

In 2017, Johnson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court 

of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District. (Lodgment Nos. 15-16, ECF Nos. 9-40–9-

42.) The state appellate court denied the petition in a written opinion. (Lodgment No. 

17, ECF No. 9-43.) She thereafter filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

California Supreme Court. (Lodgment Nos. 18-20, ECF Nos. 9-44–9-46.) The 

California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition. (Lodgment No. 21, ECF No. 9-

47.)

On June 3, 2019, Johnson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1, 1-2–1-6.) Respondent filed a motion to 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 45
3

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dismiss on July 1, 2019. (ECF No. 8.) Johnson filed an opposition to the motion to 

dismiss on September 11, 2019. (ECF No. 11.)

III. DISCUSSION

Johnson was convicted in 1999 of assault on a child resulting in death, a violation 

of California Penal Code § 273ab, for the death of a baby girl in her daycare. The 

prosecution alleged Johnson assaulted the victim, Jasmine Miller, by shaking and 

slamming her into a fixed surface causing fatal head injuries. (Lodgment No. 3 vol. 1, 

ECF No. 9-25 at 127.) After pursuing her appellate remedies in state court, Johnson has 

now filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court contending 

that her due process rights have been violated because the scientific theories upon which 

her convictions are based have been disproven and her trial counsel was ineffective. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1 at 44-174.) Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the 

Petition is untimely and Johnson concedes that it is. (Answer, ECF No. 8-1; Pet., ECF 

No. 1 at 127.) Johnson argues, however, that she has suffered a “fundamental 

miscarriage of justice” sufficient to establish that she is actually innocent of the charges 

against her and she may therefore be excused from the statute of limitations imposed by 

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 

U.S. 383, 386 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 301 (1995); Herrera v. Collins, 506 

U.S. 390, 404 (1993). 

A. Legal Framework

Under AEDPA a one-year period of limitation applies to a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The 

limitation period runs from the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct 

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by 

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is 

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 45
4

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by 

the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral 

review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented 

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002).

Johnson’s conviction became final on May 15, 2001 and AEDPA’s statute of 

limitations expired on May 15, 2002. See McMonagle v. Meyer, 802 F.3d 1093, 1097 

(9th Cir. 2015); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that 

where no petition for certiorari is filed in the United States Supreme Court, convictions 

become final ninety days after the California Supreme Court denies a petition for review). 

Her Petition, filed in this Court on June 3, 2019, is well past the statute of limitations. In 

Schlup, however, the Supreme Court explained that a petitioner’s claim of actual 

innocence can act as a “gateway” to having his otherwise procedurally defaulted claims 

considered by a federal court. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 326-27. In McQuiggin, the Supreme 

Court applied the same logic to petitions filed after the expiration of AEDPA’s statute of 

limitations. McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at 399. The Court has noted the standard is 

“demanding.” Id. at 401. A petitioner must establish that she is actually innocent of the 

charges against her and that ‘“it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would 

have convicted [her] in light of the new evidence.’” McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at 399, quoting 

Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327. “The gateway should open only when a petition presents 

‘evidence of innocence so strong that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of 

the trial unless the court is also satisfied that the trial was free of nonharmless 

constitutional error.’” Id. at 401, quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 316.

“To be credible, [a claim of actual innocence] requires [a] petitioner to support his 

allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence – whether it be exculpatory 

scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence – that 

was not presented at trial. Id. at 324. The reviewing court “must assess the probative 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 45
5

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

force of the newly presented evidence in connection with the evidence of guilt adduced at 

trial.” Id. at 332. The Schlup Court noted the difference between the standard applied in 

sufficiency of the evidence claims, as enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 

(1979) and the standard to be applied in Schlup cases:

The Jackson standard, which focuses on whether any rational juror could 

have convicted, looks to whether there is sufficient evidence which, if 

credited, could support the conviction. The Jackson standard thus differs in 

at least two important ways from the Carrier standard. First, under Jackson, 

the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is generally beyond the scope 

of review. In contrast, under the gateway standard we describe today, the 

newly presented evidence may indeed call into question the credibility of the 

witnesses presented at trial. In such a case, the habeas court may have to 

make some credibility assessments. Second, and more fundamentally, the 

focus of the inquiry is different under Jackson than under Carrier. Under 

Jackson, the use of the word “could” focuses the inquiry on the power of the 

trier of fact to reach its conclusion. Under Carrier, the use of the word 

“would” focuses the inquiry on the likely behavior of the trier of fact.

Id. at 330.

The question before this Court, therefore, is whether Johnson’s new evidence, 

taken together with the evidence presented at her trial, is sufficient for this Court to 

conclude that no rational juror would have convicted her. Id.

B. Discussion

As science has advanced, so has the use of scientific evidence in criminal 

prosecutions. DNA evidence, for example, has played a significant role in both 

convicting and exonerating defendants. The use of scientific evidence in this manner, 

however, has not been without its critics. Over time, the basis for such evidence or its 

interpretation can be questioned and even disavowed. This case addresses such a 

situation. The main thrust of Johnson’s Petition is that she was convicted based upon a 

now disproven scientific theory, Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) or Shaken Impact 

Syndrome (SIS), which is currently referred to as Abusive Head Trauma (AHT). 

Specifically, Johnson contends that the current scientific understanding of what events 

could have resulted in the injuries Jasmine suffered and the mechanism of injury for 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 45
6

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SBS/SIS/AHT have evolved since Johnson’s trial to such a degree and the scientific 

evidence presented at her trial has been so undermined that it is false and cannot support 

her conviction. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 136-63.)

As Johnson’s Petition recounts, SBS is a theory developed by Dr. Norman 

Guthkelch in 1971. (Interview with Dr. Norman Guthkelch, NPR’s Morning Edition 

(June 29, 2011).) The SBS theory originally posited that children presenting with a 

“triad” of symptoms – subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages and brain swelling – and 

who had no other physical injuries such as broken bones or bruises were the victims of 

child abuse in the form of violent shaking. (Id.) SIS involves both shaking and impact of 

the child’s head against a fixed object. After this mechanism of injury was identified by 

physicians, pediatricians began testifying in criminal prosecutions of parents and other 

care givers that the presence of the triad was definitive proof of abuse because the child 

could not have suffered the injuries in any other way. As more was learned about head 

trauma in children, the American Academy of Pediatrics renamed the mechanism of 

injury from “Shaken Baby Syndrome” or “Shaken Impact Syndrome” to “Abusive Head 

Trauma” in 2009. AHT encompasses more than simply shaking an infant to include 

“both shaking and blunt impact.” Christian, C., et al., Abusive Head Trauma in Infants 

and Children, Pediatrics, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (May 

2009). Concurrent with this change came a change in the range of symptoms that can be 

diagnostic of AHT, which now includes spinal and skin injuries, skull fractures and 

fractures or breaks in other bones such as ribs or long bones in addition to the original 

triad of injuries. Christian, C., et al., Understanding Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and 

Children, Answers from American’s Pediatricians, American Academy of Pediatrics, 

June 1, 2015; Joyce, T., et al., Pediatric Abusive Head Trauma (Shaken Baby Syndrome), 

StatPearls [Internet] (Jan. 2019, updated Feb. 2019) (available at 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499836).

At Johnson’s trial, the prosecution presented expert testimony from four doctors, 

Dr. Terri Haddix, the medical examiner who performed Jasmine’s autopsy, Dr. Jan 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 45
7

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Leetsma, a pediatric neuropathologist, Dr. Randall Alexander, a child abuse expert, who 

testified about Jasmine’s injuries, the cause of her death, and the manner in which the 

injuries were likely inflicted, and Dr. Cynthia Hoecker, the emergency room physician 

who treated Jasmine. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 54-188, vol. 5, ECF No. 9-

5 at 4-141, vol. 6, ECF No. 9-6 at 5-70, vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 14-188, vol. 8, ECF No. 9-

8 at 170-78, vol. 9, ECF No. 9-9 at 3-53.) The prosecution also presented testimony from 

Dr. Carly Ward, a biomechanical engineer, who testified that Johnson’s account of 

Jasmine’s fall from the high chair could not have produced Jasmine’s injuries. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 8, ECF No. 9-8 at 66-170.) The defense presented testimony from 

a pediatrician, Dr. Janice Carter-Lourensz, who questioned the SBS/SIS/AHT diagnosis 

and mechanism of injury, and a biomechanical engineer who testified that Jasmine could 

have sustained her injuries from a fall from the high chair. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 12, 

ECF No. 9-12 at 55-185, vol. 15-16, ECF No. 9-15 at 88-147, vol. 17, ECF No. 9-16 at 

106-30, ECF No. 13-1 at 22-31.) Johnson asserts that the opinions given by these experts 

have now been shown to be baseless and that the injuries suffered by Jasmine could have 

resulted from the high chair fall Johnson described. 

1. Factual Background – Evidence Presented at Trial

At about 3:09 p.m. on June 24, 1997, Suzanne Johnson, a day care provider, called 

911 and reported that a baby in her care, Jasmine Miller, was choking and had stopped 

breathing. (Lodgment No. 3 vol. 1, ECF No. 9-25 at 133-35.) The 911 operator 

instructed Johnson on how to give Jasmine CPR. (Id. at 135-37.) Paramedics arrived at 

3:20; Jasmine appeared “lifeless” with no pulse and she was not breathing. (Lodgment 

No. 1 vol. 4, ECF No. 9-4 at 37-38.) They began resuscitation efforts, including placing 

a breathing tube into Jasmine. (Id. at 38-40; Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 8.) 

Medical personnel continued resuscitation efforts during transport to the hospital and at 

the emergency room. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 8, ECF NO. 9-8 at 178.) 

Dr. Cynthia Hoecker treated Jasmine at the hospital emergency room. (Lodgment 

No. 1 vol. 8, ECF No. 9-8 at 176, vol. 9, ECF No. 9-9 at 4-5.) She testified that when 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 45
8

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jasmine arrived, she appeared to be dead and subsequent efforts to revive her were 

unsuccessful; she was declared dead at 3:50 p.m. (Id. at 4, 12.) When she examined 

Jasmine, she noted a flattened area on the back of her head, which she thought could be a 

skull fracture, and retinal hemorrhages. (Id. at 5-6.) Hoecker did not think Jasmine’s 

injuries were consistent with choking and thought Jasmine could have been the victim of 

abuse. (Id. at 8.) Hoecker informed homicide detectives about her suspicions. (Id.)

Detectives interviewed Johnson first at her home and then at the police station. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 6, ECF No. 9-6 at 88; Lodgment No. 3 vol. 1, ECF No. 9-25 at 

139- 214.) Johnson first told police that she had been feeding Jasmine at about 2:30 

when she began choking on food. (Lodgment No. 3 vol. 1, ECF No. 9-25 at 145, 148.) 

Johnson said she turned Jasmine over to try to get the vomit out of her mouth; Jasmine 

was limp and had stopped breathing so she called 911. (Id. at 155.) Jasmine was also 

gagging or gurgling. (Id. at 156.) When asked about a bruise on Jasmine’s eye, Johnson 

told police she thought she had caused the bruise while she was administering CPR as 

directed by 911. (Id. at 154.) Johnson also told police Jasmine was having a difficult 

time adjusting to daycare and did not nap, cried a lot and refused to take a bottle. (Id. at 

149, 170-71.) 

Johnson at first denied Jasmine had fallen or hit her head while in her care, even 

when confronted with the fact that Jasmine had a skull fracture. (Id. at 183-92.) 

Eventually, Johnson told police Jasmine had fallen out of a high chair onto her back. (Id., 

Lodgment No. 1 vol. 2, ECF No. 9-26 at 21-22.) When asked, Johnson told police she 

did not tell them about Jasmine’s fall before because she did not see anything wrong with 

Jasmine’s head after the fall and she thought Jasmine had choked to death. (Id. at 23.) 

She later demonstrated how the accident had occurred. Johnson told police she put 

Jasmine into the high chair but did not strap her in. (Lodgment No. 3 vol. 2, ECF No. 9-

27 at 5.) She said she turned around to pick up the high chair tray and heard a thud and 

Jasmine was on the floor. (Id. at 6.) She did not see Jasmine fall. (Id. at 3, 6.) First, she 

told police she thought she may have caught her shorts on Jasmine’s leg and knocked her 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 45
9

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

out of the chair. (Id. at 43-44.) Later, Johnson told police that Jasmine fell out of the 

high chair when Johnson caught her hand on a piece of the chair. (Id. at 79.) 

Dr. Haddix conducted Jasmine’s autopsy. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 

119.) She testified that upon external examination, she saw a bruise on Jasmine’s right 

eye and a bruise behind her left ear. (Id. at 71.) When Haddix examined Jasmine’s brain, 

she found two skull fractures. The fracture under the bruise behind her left ear was 

approximately two inches long and complex, consisting of both a linear fracture and in 

the center of the linear fracture a “punch-out” fracture, described as a “small circular area 

which appeared to be punched out,” or “like a hole punch.” (Id. at 73, 80.) There was 

also a five-and-a-half to six-inch long fracture on the right side of Jasmine’s skull and 

Haddix found fresh blood layered over the left side of Jasmine’s brain and fresh blood 

around her spinal cord. (Id. at 74-75, 88.) There was a subdural hemorrhage on the left 

side of her brain. (Id. at 73-74.) She also found multiple, fresh bilateral retinal 

hemorrhages in Jasmine’s eyes. (Id. at 88, 91.) In addition, she found an older subdural 

hemorrhage that she estimated to be two to four weeks old, and there were “indications 

that there had been a previous hemorrhage around the spinal cord.” (Id. at 111, 116.)

Haddix concluded that all of Jasmine’s injuries, except the old subdural 

hemorrhage, were the result of one event and that the cause of Jasmine’s death was nonaccidental blunt force trauma to her head. (Id. at 88, 119.) She was not sure whether 

shaking played any role in Jasmine’s injuries and death. (Id. at 51.) Haddix postulated 

that the fractures, acute subdural hemorrhage and retinal hemorrhages resulted from 

Jasmine’s head being slammed into a fixed object that had a raised surface. (Id. at 93-

95.) She further postulated that it would require “substantial force” to result in these 

injuries, such as the force experienced by an unrestrained child in a car accident. (Id. at 

97.) Jasmine would have lost consciousness within two minutes of the infliction of the 

injury and Johnson’s account of how the injury occurred was not reasonable or consistent 

with Jasmine’s injuries. (Id. at 105, 119-20, 122.) Haddix testified the “punch-out”

portion of the fracture had to have been caused by something elevated or protruding from 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 45
10

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a flat surface or the corner or edge of an object. (Id. at 87.) Falling on a flat floor would 

not produce the “punch-out” fracture. (Id. at 88.) 

Dr. Leetsma concurred with many of Haddix’s conclusions, including her 

conclusion that the “punch-out” fracture was the result of Jasmine’s head hitting the edge 

of an object or a raised portion of a flat surface. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 

95-98.) He did not, however, believe that both of Jasmine’s skull fractures had occurred 

at the same time. (Id. at 42.) He testified the left fracture appeared fresh and the right 

fracture showed some healing but agreed that it was reasonable to conclude the left 

fracture had at least extended the right skull fracture. (Id. at 43-44.) Leetsma agreed 

Jasmine had bilateral retinal hemorrhages and testified there was evidence of older retinal 

hemorrhages as well. (Id. at 44.) And, Leetsma agreed Jasmine had an older subdural 

hemorrhage and an older spinal cord hemorrhage that was at least two weeks old. (Id. at 

33-40.) From this Leetsma concluded that Jasmine had “suffered a traumatic episode 

with impact a couple of weeks or so before death,” and an acute “impact behind the left 

ear” which led to her death; in addition, “there may have been an element of shaking to 

it.” (Id. at 30, 47-48.) Leetsma agreed with Haddix that Jasmine would have become 

unconscious immediately after sustaining her injuries. (Id. at 30.) Based on his 

observations of “red neurons” in Jasmine’s brain, he estimated Jasmine would have been 

unconscious by about 1:50 p.m., over an hour before Johnson called 911. (Id. at 23.) He 

also testified that Johnson’s story about how Jasmine’s injuries occurred did not match 

the injuries he observed. (Id. at 55.) In order to produce the “punch-out” fracture, 

Jasmine’s head had to have impacted “a pebble, an edge, [or] a protruding surface of 

some sort” with sufficient force. (Id.)

Dr. Randall Alexander testified as an expert on child abuse and SBS and SIS. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 32.) Alexander testified about the triad of 

symptoms associated with SBS/SIS: subdural hemorrhages, retinal hemorrhages and 

cerebral swelling. (Id. at 38-40.) SIS cases exhibit SBS symptoms plus bruising or skull 

fractures at the point of impact. (Id. at 40.) Given Jasmine’s injuries, Alexander believed 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 45
11

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

she was a victim of SIS and that her injuries were a result of an impact with some shaking 

component. (Id. at 61.) According to Alexander, Jasmine would have been immediately 

unconscious and would not have looked like a normal child. (Id. at 62.) Alexander 

further testified that Jasmine’s injuries could not have come from a high chair fall 

because there was not enough height or force to have produced them. (Id. at 84-86.) The 

injuries would have required significant force, like a fall from a three-story building. (Id.

at 100.) He further testified that short falls cause fractures in rare cases but do not cause 

retinal hemorrhages or death. (Id. at 105.) In his opinion, the injuries were nonaccidental because they were “very significant injuries that wouldn’t occur through 

anything Jasmine could do,” nor could they be from a short fall. (Id. at 83.)

Dr. Carley Ward, a biomechanical engineer, testified that she could not reproduce 

Jasmine’s injuries when she tried to replicate the accident as described by Johnson using 

the high chair and a sample of Johnson’s carpet. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 8, ECF No. 9-8 at 

81-87.) Specifically, she could not create a scenario where the dummy she was using 

landed on her back and hit the back of her head on the floor, as Johnson claimed. (Id. at 

88, 108-12.) Ward found it took nine pounds of pressure to start tipping the high chair 

and “to really move the chair as [Johnson] described, you’d have to have about 11 pounds 

of force on the chair.” (Id. at 82.) In her opinion, it was not possible for Jasmine to have 

fallen or have been launched out of the high chair in the manner described by Johnson 

and sustain a fracture on the back of her head. (Id. at 121.) She also testified that 

Jasmine’s injuries were too severe to have been caused by a fall from the high chair. (Id.) 

Dr. Janice Carter-Lourensz, a pediatrician who specialized in child abuse and child 

development, testified for the defense. She stated that the medical community had 

developed an almost religious belief in SBS and that a triad of symptoms, retinal 

hemorrhages, subdural hemorrhages and cerebral swelling, was diagnostic of abuse. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 12, ECF No. 9-12 at 64-65.) She disputed the idea that the 

presence of these injuries determined whether the injuries were accidental or inflicted. 

(Id.) Carter-Lourensz testified that retinal hemorrhages could be caused by a rapid rise in 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 45
12

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

intercranial pressure, impacts to the head and CPR. (Id. at 66-69.) She also testified that 

short falls can produce fatal head injuries and that children with such injuries can have 

lucid intervals after they are injured during which time they appear to be normal. (Id. at 

69-73.) In addition, she said that prior head trauma that led to a subdural hemorrhage can 

rebleed and increase the severity of new head trauma. (Id. at 81-82.) Carter-Lourensz 

stated that the cause of Jasmine’s death was blunt force trauma, not shaking, but that 

there was no way to determine whether the injury was accidental or inflicted. (Id. at 95-

96.) 

The defense also called Dr. Peter Francis, a biomechanical engineer. (Lodgment 

No. 1 vol. 15-16, ECF No. 9-15 at 88.) Francis testified that Dr. Ward’s reenactment of 

the fall based on Johnson’s description of the event could not be accurate because there 

were inconsistencies in Johnson’s description of the event and because there is “no way 

of knowing from any of the information I’ve had exactly where the baby was seated, 

which position of the body, where in relation to the chair . . . the direction of force or the 

amount of force that was applied.” (Id. at 95.) In addition, according to Francis, Ward’s 

reenactment did not account for the ability of Jasmine’s body to move in space. (Id. at 

97-99.) Ward also did not account for how the high chair may have moved on the floor’s 

surface. (Id. at 100-01.) Francis found from his own experiment with the actual high

chair and carpet that was on Johnson’s floor at the time of Jasmine’s death that it took six 

pounds of pressure, not the eleven pounds Ward found. (Id. at 103.) Further, during

Francis’s experiments, the high chair rotated nearly every time he tried to topple the high

chair during his experiments. (Id. at 104.) The rotation of the chair would have an effect 

on how Jasmine would have landed on the floor. (Id. at 105-15.) According to Francis, 

there would be infinite variations of how a human hand would exert force on the chair 

and thus infinite variations of how the high chair would rotate and topple. (Id. at 109-

10.) Francis believed there were “many different permutations, combinations, with a 

flexible infant with these three dimensional movements, not a simple flop, that would 

produce a blow anywhere on the rear portion of the head.” (Id. at 115.)

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 45
13

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The defense also called character witnesses, including Johnson’s family members,

her boyfriend and parents of children for whom Johnson provided daycare. All testified 

that Johnson was a loving person who would not hurt a child. (Id. at 4-88, Lodgment No. 

1 vol. 17, ECF No. 9-16 at 26-44.) In rebuttal, the prosecution presented two parents of 

children to whom Johnson had provided daycare. Michael McKinnis testified that in 

1992 he picked his eleven-month-old daughter Chelsea up from Johnson’s daycare. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 17, ECF No. 9-16 at 46.) Johnson told McKinnis that Chelsea had 

fallen, had “screamed and cried” after the fall, and had been fussy and needed to be held 

for the rest of the day. (Id. at 47-49.) McKinnis took Chelsea to dinner with his wife and 

they noticed that Chelsea would not use her left arm. (Id. at 50.) The arm was “just 

hanging there and limp.” (Id. at 52.) The parents called their pediatrician, who suggested 

the arm may be dislocated and directed the parents on how to correct the dislocation. (Id.

at 52.) Chelsea screamed and was in obvious pain, and the parents took her to the 

emergency room where Chelsea was diagnosed with a broken left humerus (upper arm). 

(Id. at 53-54.) The arm was casted and the family returned home, but the next day the 

hospital called and told them there was an older fracture near Chelsea’s wrist on the same 

arm. (Id. at 54.) A subsequent investigation of Chelsea’s parents exonerated them, and 

the parents removed Chelsea from Johnson’s care. (Id. at 57.) McKinnis also testified 

that while Chelsea was in Johnson’s care, he saw Johnson pick up children, including 

infants, by their upper arms and pull them toward her, which concerned McKinnis. (Id.

at 58.) Dr. Wendy Wright, one of the doctors who treated Chelsea, testified that given 

that the humerus is a “fairly big bone . . . it takes a fairly significant amount of force to 

break that bone” and the force of an eleven-month-old falling would not be enough. (Id.

at 85, 90.) 

Valerie Adams also had a child in Johnson’s care around the same time as the 

McKinnises. (Id. at 68.) Her son Cameron was ten weeks old when Johnson cared for 

him for a two-week period in about 1991. (Id. at 68-69.) Johnson was scheduled to be 

hospitalized during the initial period of Cameron’s attendance and Johnson’s daughter

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 45
14

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

offered to look after Cameron in her mother’s absence; and Adams accepted. (Id. at 70.) 

When Adams took Cameron back to Johnson, Johnson was very hostile and upset that 

Adams had taken Cameron to Johnson’s daughter for care. (ECF No. 13-1 at 8.) Adams

took Cameron out of Johnson’s care because she did not feel he was safe. (Lodgment 

No. 1 vol. 17, ECF No. 9-16 at 69-71.) 

2. New Evidence

Johnson has provided reports and declarations from eight medical experts who 

express varying opinions about the testimony at Johnson’s trial, Jasmine’s injuries, her 

cause of death and the likelihood her injuries could have been caused by a fall from a 

high chair. (Petr’s Exs., ECF No. 1-4 at 247-305.) Two of the experts, Drs. Leetsma and 

Haddix, testified at the trial. Neither one retracts their conclusion that Jasmine was the 

victim of non-accidental trauma. (Petr’s Ex., ECF Nos. 1-4 at 302-05, 1-6 at 4-6.) Dr. 

Leetsma’s letter states that were he to testify today, he would qualify his testimony 

regarding how accurate the presence of “red neurons” can reconstruct how long a 

person’s brain was without oxygen, and therefore how quickly a person would become 

unconscious, by noting that such reconstruction is “imprecise” and that “such imprecision 

must be considered against the body of evidence or lack thereof in this case.” (Petr’s Ex., 

ECF No. 1-4 at 304.) Dr. Haddix states that she would not substantively change any of 

her opinions regarding the injuries Jasmine suffered or the mechanism of injury, although 

she does say she would modify her testimony regarding how long Jasmine would have 

been conscious after she was injured from “a few minutes” and “at the outside . . . a 

couple of hours” to simply “not an extended period of time.” (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-6 at 

4-6.) She also states that while she testified at trial that “You don’t die from short falls,” 

she is aware of cases where a short fall has resulted in death but that “the potential 

lethality of short distance falls is far from universally accepted by forensic pathologists, 

neuropathologists and pediatricians.” (Id.) Five of the medical experts call into question 

the scientific basis for SBS/SIS/AHT and the trial experts’ testimony that linked 

Jasmine’s injuries to a diagnosis of SBS/SIS/AHT, dispute the trial testimony regarding 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 45
15

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the lethality of short falls and whether children can experience “lucid intervals” after 

sustaining a fatal head injury, and/or posit that Jasmine’s injuries could have been the

result of the fall from the high chair. (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 248-78, 292-300.) One 

expert, a pediatric ophthalmologist, expresses an opinion regarding the retinal 

hemorrhages in Jasmine’s eyes and concludes they were a result of SBS/SIS/AHT. 

(Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-5 at 127-33.)

In addition to the medical experts, Johnson has submitted reports from a 

biomechanical engineer and an audio engineer. The biomechanical engineer, Dr. Chris 

Van Ee, states that current scientific knowledge confirms that short falls, that is, falls 

between 12 inches and 32 inches, can and do result in skull fractures. (Petr’s Ex., ECF 

No. 1-4.) Van Ee asserts that, based on his and other research, “a fall off of a high chair 

of a normal healthy child of 6 months of age resulting in a direct head impact has the 

potential to cause serious and even fatal head injury consistent with the head injury 

reported for Jasmine.” (Id. at 286.) According to Van Ee, such falls can and do also 

result in subdural hemorrhages and retinal hemorrhages. (Id. 285.) He further states that 

given Jasmine had a prior subdural hemorrhage, the threshold for a new injury to result in 

a serious head injury was lower. (Id.) The audio engineer, Michael Gburzynski, 

enhanced the 911 tape and discovered a noise, other than the voices of Johnson and the 

911 operator, which fell within the range of human voice. (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-5.) 

The noise occurs at the point in the tape that Johnson says, “Did you hear that? That was 

her.” (Id. at 21.) Dr. Nichols states in his report that he listened to the enhanced tape and 

the noises he heard were consistent with “a child struggling to breathe through partially 

obstructed airways,” which he says means Jasmine was alive at the time of the 911 call. 

(Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 293.)

 a. Retinal Hemorrhages, Cerebral Edema and Subdural Hemorrhage (the “triad”)

Johnson contends the medical experts at her trial testified that a series of three 

injuries known as “the triad” – retinal hemorrhages, subdural hemorrhages and cerebral 

edema – could only have been produced by violent incident of shaking and impact and 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 45
16

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

were thus diagnostic of SBS/SIS/AHT, and that they could not have resulted from the fall 

from the high chair Johnson recounted. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 75-125, 136-44.) She further 

contends the prosecution experts testified that the presence of this triad of injuries is 

diagnostic of SBS/SIS/AHT. According to Johnson, current scientific and medical 

research has now determined that there was no scientific basis for the experts’ assertions, 

and her conviction was therefore based on false evidence. (Id.) Given this new 

information, she claims that no reasonable juror would convict her. (Id.)

i. Retinal Hemorrhages

Johnson states that the experts presented by the prosecution at her trial testified that 

retinal hemorrhages are caused by violent shaking and are diagnostic of abuse. She 

claims there is no scientific basis for this claim and that retinal hemorrhages are no longer 

considered diagnostic of SBS/SIS/AHT. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 91-98, 141-43.) 

At trial, Dr. Haddix testified she observed multiple, fresh bilateral retinal 

hemorrhages during Jasmine’s autopsy which were one to two days old. (Lodgment No. 

1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 89.) She believed the retinal hemorrhages were the consequence 

of the same incident which produced the skull fractures and other injuries. (Id. at 91.) 

According to Haddix, in addition to shaking, retinal hemorrhages result from rapid 

deceleration, “a sudden abrupt stop of the head against something unyielding.” (Id. at 94-

95.) She believed Jasmine’s head had been struck against something fixed, and she did 

not believe a fall such as the one described by Johnson could have produced sufficient 

acceleration to cause the retinal hemorrhages. (Id. at 94, 154.) According to Haddix, 

skull fractures alone do not generally produce retinal hemorrhages because “usually 

retinal hemorrhages are seen associated with forces of greater magnitude than that 

producing merely the skull fracture,” but they “can be seen with skull fractures in 

combination with subdural[] [hemorrhages].” (Id. at 187.) 

Dr. Leetsma testified Jasmine had both fresh and old bilateral retinal hemorrhages. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 44.) The fresh ones were under a day old. (Id.

at 45.) Leetsma testified that while it is not absolute, the presence of retinal hemorrhages 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 45
17

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with a subdural hemorrhage is a “pretty strong marker for the child having been shaken.” 

(Id. at 48.) Given all of Jasmine’s injuries, he believed that taken together “the 

conclusion becomes pretty strong that an impact certainly occurred, and there may have 

been some element of shaking connected with it.” (Id.) Leetsma went on to say the 

following:

I think, as I say, I think there are some inferences; one of them being 

that in infants that show retinal hemorrhages, there is a strong likelihood that 

battering or abuse was involved. Some would take it farther to say that it 

meant shaking. I think statistically that is probably correct. But that doesn’t 

elevate us to the level of confidence you’d say: Well, maybe that’s true six 

out of eight times, or maybe eight out of ten times. But what about the other 

percent? It means there may be some other interpretation.

(Id. at 78-79.)

Leetsma further testified that other things, such as CPR, can cause retinal 

hemorrhages and they can also be caused by a “rapid rise or rapid changes in intercranial 

pressure” where no shaking occurred. (Id. at 121.) He testified he did not know if 

Jasmine had been shaken, but there was an impact with or without shaking. (Lodgment 

No. 1 vol. 6, ECF No. 9-6 at 59-60.) He agreed with defense counsel, however, that it 

was possible that “an impact sufficient to cause a subdural hematoma and swelling of the 

brain would rise [sic] intercranial pressure and cause retinal hemorrhaging without 

shaking.” (Id. at 59.) 

Dr. Alexander testified that although it is possible for intercranial pressure and 

other things to cause retinal hemorrhages, this did not occur in Jasmine’s case because 

she did not have a lot of brain swelling and was not in the hospital and on a ventilator 

long enough for that to have occurred. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 58-59.) 

The retinal hemorrhages along with the global brain injury is what led Alexander to 

conclude that Jasmine was the victim of some type of shaking incident. (Id. at 59.) 

Dr. Hoecker testified she did not think retinal hemorrhages would be likely to 

result from a fall and that they “are usually the result of a shaking mechanism.” 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 9, ECF No. 9-9 at 20.) She also testified that retinal hemorrhages 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 45
18

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

are “considered to be pretty much pathognomonic or significant for shaking, although I 

think this is a controversial area,” and that “[t]here are people who believe that possibly 

other mechanisms could cause retinal hemorrhages other than a shaking injury.” (Id. at 

30.) She further testified that “[i]f you see retinal hemorrhages in an infant, that there is a 

99 percent chance maybe that that child has been shaken, 99 percent or greater.” (Id. at 

33.) Hoecker disagreed with Leetsma that a rapid rise in intercranial pressure or CPR 

could produce retinal hemorrhages. (Id. at 31-32.) 

Two of the new experts Johnson has presented in support of her Petition, Dr. John 

Plunkett, a forensic pathologist, and Dr. Harry Bonnell, former Chief Deputy Medical 

Examiner of San Diego County, expressed opinions on retinal hemorrhages. Plunkett

reviewed Jasmine’s medical records and trial testimony from Haddix and Leetsma. (Pet., 

ECF No. 1-4 at 248.) Plunkett states that retinal hemorrhages result from intracranial 

pressure or occlusion of retinal veins. (Id. at 250; Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 

121, vol. 6, ECF No. 9-6 at 59.) Dr. Plunkett notes that while much of the scientific 

literature states that retinal hemorrhages are “strongly associated with ‘shaking’ as a 

mechanism,” some studies have shown that retinal hemorrhages “occur[] in a large 

number of cases of primary and even secondary brain injury” and not just in shaking 

cases. (Id.) He further states that retinal hemorrhages are a “cascade phenomenon” 

which “merely indicate[] that [Jasmine] had either structural or functional occlusion of 

the veins returning blood from the eyes to the heart.” (Id.) Dr. Bonnell also reviewed 

Jasmine’s medical records and the trial testimony. (Id. at 270.) He states that the belief 

that retinal hemorrhages are caused by shaking “has never been proven and is one of the 

major reasons the diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome has been abandoned in favor of 

Abusive Head Trauma, which does not include any specific mechanism of injury.” (Id. at 

272.) 

The opinions expressed by Drs. Plunkett and Bonnell are not altogether new to 

Johnson’s case. Drs. Haddix and Leetsma, like Dr. Plunkett, both testified that retinal 

hemorrhages can be caused by things other than shaking. Haddix testified they can result 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 45
19

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from “a sudden abrupt stop of the head against something unyielding,” not just shaking, 

or “in combination with [skull fractures and] subdural[] [hemorrhages].” (Lodgment No. 

1 vol. 3. ECF No. 9-3 at 94-95, 187.) In addition Leetsma, like Plunkett, testified that 

CPR or a “rapid rise or rapid changes in intercranial pressure” can cause retinal 

hemorrhages, and that “an impact sufficient to cause a subdural hematoma and swelling 

of the brain would rise [sic] intercranial pressure and cause retinal hemorrhaging without 

shaking.” (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 59.) Notably, neither Dr. Haddix nor 

Dr. Leetsma, who have both submitted declarations, retract any of their trial testimony 

regarding retinal hemorrhages. (Id. at 4-6, 302-04.) Moreover, Dr. Bonnell’s assertion 

that the term “Abusive Head Trauma” was coined because there is no proof that shaking 

causes retinal hemorrhages does not assist Johnson’s claim. No expert has stated that 

Jasmine’s injuries resulted from shaking alone. All have concluded that an impact of 

some sort, either intentional or accidental, was the cause of her injuries and that there 

may or may not have been a shaking component. 

Moreover, the claim that the scientific community has abandoned the belief that 

retinal hemorrhages can be caused by shaking or shaking plus impact is an overstatement. 

While Johnson presents medical experts who contend that retinal hemorrhages cannot be 

produced by shaking or shaking plus impact, there are also recent scientific papers which 

have concluded the opposite. Duhaime, A., et al., Abusive Head Trauma: Evidence, 

Obfuscation, and Informed Management, Journal of Neurosurgery (Nov. 2019); Cowley, 

L., et al., Validation of a Prediction Tool for Abusive Head Trauma, Pediatrics (Aug. 

2015); Maguire, S., et al., Which Clinical Features Distinguish Inflicted From NonInflicted Brain Injury? A Systematic Review, Arch. Dis. Child. (June 2009). Indeed, Dr. 

Reiber, one of Johnson’s new experts, states in his report that the presence of retinal 

hemorrhages suggests shaking as a mechanism of injury. (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 

297.)

In addition, Drs. Plunkett and Bonnell are not experts in the field of pediatric 

ophthalmology. Dr. Alex Levin, Chief of Pediatric Ophthalmology at WillsEye Hospital, 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 45
20

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

however, is such an expert. He reviewed Jasmine’s medical records and microscopic 

slides of her eye tissue and submitted a report to San Diego Assistant District Attorney 

Kathryn Gayle. (Pet., ECF No. 1-4 at 128.) Citing several studies from 2000 to 2015, he 

states that the particular type of retinal hemorrhages seen in Jasmine’s eyes are “highly 

indicative of child abuse in the absence of fatal head crush, motor vehicle accident or an 

11 meter fall onto concrete.” (Id. at 131.) He further states that there is no other “viable 

explanation for the ocular findings,” and though he agrees with Plunkett, Ophoeven, 

Bonnell and Leetsma that “retinal hemorrhages and subdural hemorrhages are not 

pathognomic of abuse, . . . they offer no other cause for the findings in this child.” (Id.) 

The evidence regarding retinal hemorrhages submitted by Johnson does not meet 

the standards set forth in Schlup and McQuiggin. It is not “new” because prosecution 

experts at trial testified that retinal hemorrhages can result from events other than shaking 

or shaking and slamming. Further, the assertion that the medical community has 

unequivocally rejected the idea that retinal hemorrhages can help determine whether a 

child’s injuries are accidental or intentional is not correct. There are experts who 

continue to believe, based on current scientific research, that retinal hemorrhages are an 

indicator of intentional injury and abuse. The Court is unable to conclude that, were a 

jury to consider the new and the old evidence together as required by Schlup and 

McQuiggin, no rational juror would convict Johnson of assault on a child causing death. 

Schlup, 513 U.S. at 301; McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at 386.

ii. Cerebral Edema and Subdural Hemorrhages

Cerebral edema is the brain’s response to trauma, whether accidental or nonaccidental. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 100-01; Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 31, vol. 

7, ECF No. 9-7 at 40.) Both the new experts and the trial experts in this case generally 

agree that Jasmine’s brain showed “mild” or “modest” brain swelling. (Lodgment No. 1

vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 137-42, vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 59; Pet., ECF No. 1 at 265.) Dr. 

Haddix testified at the trial that in addition to subarachnoid and a subgaleal hemorrhages, 

Jasmine had a fresh subdural hemorrhage under the bruise she had behind her left ear 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 45
21

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

where the “punch-out” fracture was located. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 79-

83.) These hemorrhages, coupled with the skull fractures, indicated to Dr. Haddix that a 

“substantial force” was responsible for her injuries. (Id. at 93.) She believed that 

Jasmine’s head had been struck against an object with some elevation. (Id. at 94.) She 

did not believe a fall from a high chair could have caused the subdural hemorrhage 

because the skull fractures were complex and the forces required to produce them were 

more than a fall from a high chair could produce. (Id. at 97-98.) Dr. Haddix also 

testified that Jasmine had an older subdural hemorrhage which was two to four weeks 

old. (Id. at 111, 115.) Although there was some evidence of re-bleeding in the older 

subdural hemorrhage, she did not believe it contributed to Jasmine’s death because the 

older hemorrhage was nearly healed, there was only a microscopic amount of blood 

associated with the re-bleeding, and because the new injuries were so severe. (Id. at 117-

18.) 

Dr. Leetsma agreed the subdural hemorrhage on the left side of Jasmine’s brain 

was recent and that the skull fracture and hemorrhage were related. (Lodgment No. 1 

vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 29.) He also agreed that there was an old subdural hemorrhage 

that was “two weeks-plus old.” (Id. at 38.) The “punch-out” fracture and the subdural 

hemorrhage underneath it indicated that “a protruding surface had to have impacted the 

head with sufficient force to indent at least the outer table of the skull.” (Id. at 55.) Dr. 

Leetsma disagreed with Dr. Haddix, testifying that a child could get a subdural 

hemorrhage, skull fracture and brain swelling from a three-foot fall but that it would be 

“a rare occurrence.” (Id. at 86, 101-02.) He also agreed with Dr. Haddix that old 

subdural hemorrhages can re-bleed and cause injury or death. (Id. at 116.) 

Dr. Alexander testified the recent subdural hemorrhage associated with the “punchout” fracture was “something that was usually seen[n] in connection with some variation 

of shaken baby syndrome or car crashes.” (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 57.) 

He believed her injuries were from an impact and that “extensive subdural hemorrhage” 

was the result of a “huge amount of force, if you’re talking about it from an impact, or it 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 45
22

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

would take some shaking component as well.” (Id. at 61.) They were “significant 

injuries that wouldn’t occur from anything Jasmine could do [and] they are not from falls 

from short heights.” (Id. at 63.) He believed it was possible to get a skull fracture and a 

subdural hemorrhage from a short fall if the person “hit an edge or something,” but that it 

“would be exceedingly rare.” (Id. at 105.) He had no doubt the injuries were nonaccidental. (Id. at 117.) Alexander said Jasmine’s behavior before her death was 

consistent with her having an older subdural hemorrhage but in his opinion it did not 

contribute to her death. (Id. at 79.) Dr. Hoecker testified it was possible but very 

unlikely that a fall from 32 inches or less would result in a subdural hemorrhage. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 9, ECF No. 9-9 at 20.) She had never seen such an injury. (Id. at 

15.)

In his declaration submitted in support of Johnson’s Petition, Dr. Plunkett states 

that subdural hemorrhages can result from impact, diseases or hypoxia. (Pet., ECF No. 1-

4 at 249.) In Jasmine’s case, Plunkett states, an impact caused her death, not disease. 

(Id.) Dr. Plunkett notes that Jasmine had a chronic subdural hemorrhage and states that 

“there is a decreased threshold for (re)injury until the SDH [subdural hemorrhage] has 

healed completely.” (Id. at 251.) He states that “shaking is an unlikely mechanism for 

brain damage or SDH,” and that “scientific studies suggest that it is not possible to shake 

an infant hard enough to cause a concussion, SDH, or traumatic brain injury.” (Id. at 251

(emphasis in original).) No expert believes, however, that Jasmine’s injuries were

inflicted by shaking alone. Indeed, every expert states that Jasmine either died from blunt 

force trauma or that it was a contributing factor to her death. Moreover, Drs. Haddix and 

Leetsma testified at trial, consistent with Dr. Plunkett, that old subdural hemorrhages can 

re-bleed and even cause death. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3 at 117-18, vol. 5 at 116.) Thus, 

Dr. Plunkett’s statements about whether shaking caused her subdural hemorrhage is not 

“[new, reliable] evidence of innocence so strong that it calls into question the reliability 

of the verdict.” McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at 324, 399. 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 45
23

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dr. Reiber also states in his declaration in support of Johnson’s Petition that 

Jasmine had a recent and an older subdural hemorrhage. (Pet., ECF No. 1-4 at 297.) 

According to Reiber, both hemorrhages appear to have been caused by an impact, with 

the older subdural hemorrhage likely associated with the right skull fracture, while the 

left “punch-out” fracture is likely associated with the newer subdural hemorrhage. (Id.) 

Dr. Reiber agrees that the older subdural hemorrhage is two to four weeks old and that 

pre-existing subdural hemorrhages can re-bleed and can “make[] a worse outcome from a 

lesser impact more likely, although at least a moderate force would still be expected.” 

(Id. at 297-98.) As noted above, Drs. Haddix and Leetsma’s trial testimony was 

consistent with Dr. Reiber’s declaration. Both doctors testified that Jasmine had an older 

and a more recent subdural hemorrhage and that chronic subdural hemorrhages can rebleed and cause injury or death. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 79-83, 111, 

115, 117-18; vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 38, 116.) Thus, weighing both the old and new 

evidence together, Dr. Reiber’s report does not offer any exculpatory scientific evidence 

sufficient to establish that no rational juror would convict Johnson. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 

301; McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at 386.

iii. The “Triad” as Pathognomonic of Abuse

In addition to attacking the scientific basis for each of the components of the triad 

of injuries associated with SBS/SIS/AHT, Johnson attacks the very diagnosis of 

SBS/SIS/AHT, arguing that there is no reliable scientific basis for the claim that retinal 

hemorrhages, subdural hemorrhages and cerebral edema can be produced by shaking 

alone or shaking with impact, and that these injuries, when presented together, are not 

exclusively diagnostic of SBS/SIS/AHT because they can be produced by an accidental 

means. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 80-101, 136-140.) Johnson claims that prosecution experts 

testified at her trial that the presence of the triad alone established that intentional and not 

accidental trauma was the cause of Jasmine’s injuries and death. (Id.) 

Dr. Haddix testified she believed a “substantial force” had been applied to 

Jasmine’s head to have resulted in her injuries, such as her head being struck against a 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 45
24

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fixed object with some elevation, and she suspected there was some element of a 

crushing force. (Id. at 94.) The retinal hemorrhages could have either been from shaking 

or from a rapid deceleration into a fixed object. (Id. at 94-95.) On cross examination, Dr. 

Haddix agreed that “non-accidental and accidental injuries can have an overlap of the 

type of injuries,” and that “the mere presence of the subdural doesn’t scream to me: 

Ahhha, this was inflicted; or: Oh, no, this was accidental. I can’t say that.” (Id. at 159.) 

She further testified that “with short falls, you can have skull fractures, and you can have 

subdurals.” (Id.) In response to the question whether she could attribute the acute 

bleeding in Jasmine’s neck area to a shaking incident, she replied that “there is clearly an 

impact, so it’s more than shaking, if shaking played a role at all.” (Id. at 161.) She 

agreed that children could suffer subdural hemorrhages and skull fractures from a 32-inch 

fall, and perhaps even retinal hemorrhages, but those skull fractures are usually “purely 

linear, straight-line skull fracture[s].” (Id. at 88, 98, 168.) Jasmine’s skull fracture, 

however, was complex and the “punch-out” portion would not have resulted from a fall 

onto a flat, carpeted surface as Johnson claims. (Id. at 88.) She found the possibility that 

an infant could suffer a subdural hemorrhages and die from an 18-inch fall “very 

suspect,” and that it would require “terrific investigation” to determine whether it was 

true. (Id. at 170.) Dr. Haddix did not testify that Jasmine’s injuries – the triad – were 

diagnostic of intentional rather than inflicted trauma; rather, she concluded from the 

range and severity of Jasmine’s injuries that “there is no reasonable explanation in my 

mind from what I have been presented . . . to account for the injuries I saw here,” she 

concluded the death was non-accidental. (Id. at 119.)

Dr. Leetsma also did not tell the jury that the only way Jasmine could have 

suffered her injuries was from a non-accidental SBS/SIS/AHT incident. While he, like 

Dr. Haddix, opined that Johnson’s version of the high chair accident did not account for

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 45
25

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jasmine’s injuries, he very clearly testified that abuse cannot be assumed simply because 

a child presented with a particular set of symptoms:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: As an example, and you can correct me if 

I’m wrong, in the area of child abuse, I’m an expert, and I say retinal 

hemorrhaging plus an impact and inconsistent statement by the care giver is 

totally indicative of child abuse?

[DR. LEETSMA]: Right. Okay. I’ve heard your statement.

Q. Is that the dogma you’re talking about?

A. It may well be founded in dogma. I have to disagree with an 

absolute statement like that, and it is couched in dogma and belief and not 

subject to the data. The science – I try to approach my work from a 

scientific basis, which means you can question anything and everything. 

And the bottom-line response is: show me the data. If you say that’s true, 

tell me why you think that. And we should have an intellectual free-for-all 

to try to see where the truth is.

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 71.) 

Dr. Leetsma explained that while accidental injuries can cause serious injuries, 

these injuries operate on a bell curve in which the majority of injuries are minor and fall 

in the middle of the bell curve, while there a few cases at the extremes on both ends of 

the curve where children can experience no injuries or severe injuries. (Id. at 75.) 

According to Dr. Leetsma, some experts ignore the extremes on both sides and conclude 

that it is impossible for some injuries to have resulted from short falls. (Id. at 76.) He 

also conceded that he could not medically rule out the possibility that a fall from a high 

chair could have caused the skull fractures and subdural hematoma. (Lodgment No. 1 

vol. 6, ECF No. 9-6 at 41.) But in his opinion, he agreed with Dr. Haddix that Jasmine’s 

injuries could not be reconciled with the story Johnson told about how she was injured. 

(Id. at 17-18.) 

Dr. Alexander was the main expert on SBS/SIS/AHT. He described SBS as a baby 

being shaken “so violently that you actually cause brain damage and, in about a quarter of 

the cases that we see, death.” (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 38.) He testified 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

 45
26

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that “the other place we see a marker of injury in about 90 percent of the cases in shaken 

-baby syndrome is in the back of the eyes . . . [and] we call that retinal hemorrhages.” 

(Id. at 39.) In the case of SIS, a baby can be “shaken into something . . . [a]nd we might 

see evidence of a bruise on the outside; we might see a bruise on the inside . . . [y]ou 

might see a skull fracture . . . [which would be] an impact injury.” (Id. at 40.) Alexander 

noted, however, that with SIS the “brain is affected all over . . . not just affected in the 

spot where the blow landed.” (Id.) If there is simply evidence of an impact and “no 

retinal hemorrhages and no global brain issue, we just call that an impact.” (Id.) 

Alexander agreed with Dr. Haddix that short falls can produce skull fractures in children 

but they are usually linear ones not complex “punch-out” ones like Jasmine’s. (Id. at 48.) 

In addition, the fracture was at the back of Jasmine’s head where the bone is thicker and 

thus required more significant force. (Id. at 54.) Dr. Alexander testified that “[t]hese are 

quite large fractures . . . . When we get skull x-rays from falls, we just don’t see these 

kinds of things.” (Id. at 56.) He also testified that “subdural hematoma, that’s something 

that we usually see in connections with some variation of shaken-baby syndrome or car 

crashes.” (Id. at 57.) In addition, Dr. Alexander noted that the injuries to Jasmine’s 

brain were not centered on the point of impact but were more diffuse, and “that’s 

something that fits much better with a shaking mechanism than just impact alone.” (Id. at 

59.) He also stated that the retinal hemorrhages of the type seen in Jasmine’s eyes do not 

occur in impact injuries but do occur frequently in shaking injuries. (ECF No. 14-1 at 

22.) Because of the extent of Jasmine’s injuries and the global effect they had on her 

brain, he concluded they were from non-accidental trauma, specifically SBS/SIS/AHT. 

(Id. at 83.) The amount of force to create these injuries would be akin to a motor vehicle 

accident, falls from several stories, and SBS/SIS/AHT. (Id. at 56.) He believed Jasmine 

was the victim of an impact injury with a shaking element. (Lodgment No. 14-1 at 21.)

As discussed above, Johnson’s experts note that retinal hemorrhages and subdural 

hemorrhages can be caused by events other than shaking or shaking plus impact. In 

addition, two of Johnson’s experts, Drs. Ophoven and Plunkett, directly attack the 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

 45
27

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SBS/SIS/AHT diagnosis. Dr. Ophoven states that “the theory of shaken infant is now 

thought to be a seriously flawed concept,” and “[w]hat is now known is that children can 

and do suffer serious injuries from falls and more importantly can have fatal 

consequences from relatively minor trauma following serious head injuries.” (Petr’s Ex., 

ECF No. 1-4 at 268.) She goes on to state that “[i]t is my opinion to a reasonable degree 

of medical certainty that much of the medical evidence presented to the jury at the 1998 

trial of Suzanne Johnson is now considered unsupported by current evidence based 

medicine.” (Id.) Dr. Plunkett states that the assumptions made by doctors in 1999, that 

the low-velocity falls do not cause serious injury or death, children do not experience 

lucid intervals after suffering a fatal head injury, retinal hemorrhages are indicative of 

intentional versus accidental trauma, and that shaking an infant causes subdural 

hemorrhages, retinal hemorrhages, brain swelling and brain damage is not supportable 

now. (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 257.) 

First, it is not correct, as Johnson claims, that the experts who testified for the 

prosecution at her trial asserted that the only way Jasmine could have sustained her 

injuries was from non-accidental trauma or that the mere presence of the triad of 

symptoms was conclusive proof that Jasmine was the victim of SBS/SIS/AHT. Rather, it 

was the nature of Jasmine’s injuries – the severe and complex skull fracture and the 

extensive retinal hemorrhages – coupled with the improbability the high chair fall 

described by Johnson was the cause of those injuries and Johnson’s delay in telling 

authorities how Jasmine had been injured that led them to that conclusion. Moreover, 

Johnson’s assertion, based on the new expert opinions that she has presented, that “the 

triad of symptoms is no longer considered to be diagnostic of abuse,” is an 

oversimplification of the current scientific consensus regarding non-accidental infant 

head trauma. As Johnson notes, it is true that some medical professionals and scientific 

papers question whether shaking a baby or shaking a baby plus impact produces a 

particular set of injuries that distinguish the mechanism of trauma as intentional versus 

accidental, but that view is far from universal. A 2009 study which reviewed scientific 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

 45
28

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

literature in order to identify the most common clinical indicators of inflicted brain injury 

versus non-inflicted brain injury identified retinal hemorrhages as “strongly associated” 

with inflicted brain injury, particularly when the child also has an intracranial injury such 

as subdural hemorrhages. Maguire, S., et al., Which Clinical Features Distinguish 

Inflicted From Non-Inflicted Brain Injury? A Systematic Review, Arch. Dis. Child. at 865

(June 15, 2009.) A 2011 study of scientific literature published in the Archives of 

Disease in Childhood found that cerebral edema and subdural hemorrhages were 

“significantly associated with AHT.” Kemp, A.M., et al., Neuroimaging: What 

Neuroradiological Features Distinguish Abusive from Non-Abusive Head Trauma? A 

Systematic Review, Arch. Dis. Child. (September 30, 2011.) A 2015 publication from 

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) identifies “subdural hematomas (SDHs), 

with concomitant brain injury, and retinal hemorrhages (RHs), with or without additional 

injury” as “the hallmarks of child abuse and AHT . . . .” American Academy of 

Pediatrics, Understanding Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Children, Answer from 

American’s Pediatricians (June 1, 2015.) The AAP statement notes that in addition to 

the AAP, the diagnosis is recognized by The American Academy of Family Physicians, 

The American Academy of Ophthalmology, The American Association for Pediatric 

Ophthalmology and Strabismus, The American Academy of Neurologic Surgeons, The 

American College of Radiology, The American College of Surgeons, The Canadian 

Pediatric Society, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The Royal College of 

Ophthalmologists, The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, The Royal 

College of Radiologists, and The World Health Organization. (Id. at 8.) Another study 

of scientific literature published in 2015 in the American Journal of Roentgenology 

concluded that intracranial injuries, specifically subdural hemorrhages and cerebral 

edema, bruising of the head and neck and retinal hemorrhages were strongly associated 

with AHT. Greeley, C., Abusive Head Trauma: A Review of the Evidence Base, 

American Journal of Roentgenology (May 2015.) A 2018 article from Acta Paediatrica, 

a Swedish medical journal, notes that “the triad is highly relevant and of major practical 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

 45
29

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

importance in the processing of suspected child abuse . . . .” Lynoe, N., et al., Is 

Focusing on the Triad in Suspected Child Abuse Cases Really Irrelevant and of No 

Practical Use?, Acta Paediatrica (June 7, 2018.) And a 2019 article in the Journal of 

Neurosurgery: Pediatrics states that “[d]espite controversies about shaking versus impact, 

children with certain constellations of head/brain and/or somatic injuries, in combination 

with a specific history or lack of history, who have no predisposing medical condition, 

can be clearly determined to be the victims of inflicted injury.” Duhaime, A., et al., 

Abusive Head Trauma: Evidence, Obfuscation and Informed Management, Journal of 

Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (Nov. 2019.) The article further states that “SDH is identified 

in most victims of AHT, and most SDHs in infants result from abuse. . . . Retinal 

hemorrhages that are bilateral, severe, and include posterior pole and peripheral 

hemorrhages are characteristic of AHT.” (Id.) 

In short, far from being “junk science,” the use of a specific “constellation of 

injuries,” i.e., subdural hemorrhage, cerebral edema and retinal hemorrhages (the “triad), 

to help diagnose SBS/SIS/AHT remains the subject of significant debate among medical 

professionals, with members of the medical profession on both sides who argue 

forcefully for their position. It is not the case that the medical opinions given at 

Johnson’s trial were wholly without foundation at the time they were given or that no

medical professionals would testify today that Jasmine’s injuries indicated she was the 

victim of non-accidental trauma. It is true that were experts to be called today in such a 

trial the substance of the medical debate over how to determine whether Jasmine’s 

injuries were inflicted or accidental would likely be more spirited. Given the presence of 

such medical debate and experts who still believe in the basic premise of SBS/SIS/AHT, 

however, Johnson has not met her burden to establish that no reasonable juror would 

have voted to convict her. McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at 399

b. Red Neurons, Lucid Intervals and the 911 Call

Johnson testified that Jasmine fell out of the high chair somewhere between 1:00 

and 2:00 p.m. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 13, ECF No. 9-13 at 49.) After she fell out of the 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

 45
30

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

high chair, Jasmine was crying but did not seem to be seriously injured. (Id. at 54-57.) 

Johnson held and comforted her until she calmed down. (Id. at 56.) At about 2:30 p.m., 

Johnson heated up some baby food and began to feed Jasmine. (Id. at 58, 61.) At some 

point during the feeding, the food began running out of Jasmine’s mouth and she became 

limp and stopped breathing. (Id. at 59.) Johnson called 911 at 3:09 p.m. (Id. at 59-60; 

Lodgment No. 1 vol. 4, ECF No. 9-4 at 36.) Paramedics arrived at about 3:20 p.m., at 

which point Jasmine was “lifeless”; she was not breathing or moving and had no pulse. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 4, ECF No. 9-4 at 36-38.) She appeared to be dead. (Id. at 58.) 

Prosecution experts at trial testified that based on the nature of Jasmine’s injuries 

and the biological changes observed in her brain, she would have become almost

immediately unconscious after she was injured. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 

101, 105-06, vol. 5 at 21-25, vol. 7 at 62-63.) Based on his observations of Jasmine’s 

brain, Dr. Leetsma estimated Jasmine sustained her injuries at about 1:50 p.m. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 23.) Because Johnson did not call 911 until 3:09 

p.m., the prosecutor argued that Johnson was not telling the truth about when or how 

Jasmine was injured. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 18, ECF No. 9-17 at 39-41.)

Johnson contends that the science regarding when children become unconscious 

following a head injury has changed so significantly since her trial that the testimony 

about this was false. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 101-04, 144-47.) She claims this new evidence 

establishes that Jasmine could have experienced a “lucid interval” after she fell from the 

high chair during which she appeared to be uninjured, supporting Johnson’s version of 

events and explaining any delay in calling 911. (Id.) In addition, Johnson has proffered

evidence she claims establishes that a sound heard on the 911 tape was Jasmine 

struggling to breathe, which indicates Jasmine was alive and breathing during the 911 

call, further supporting her defense. (Id.; Petr’s Exs., ECF No. 1-4 at 293, 1-5 at 21.)

Dr. Haddix testified that in her opinion, Jasmine would have suffered a “rapid loss 

of consciousness” following the injuries. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 100.) 

Although some “involuntary activity such as breathing and heart rate were maintained for 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

 45
31

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

some period of time, . . . she would clearly look unconscious.” (Id. at 100-01.) Haddix 

thought it would take only a few minutes after the injuries for Jasmine to become 

unconscious and at the outside two hours before she stopped breathing. (Id. at 101.) 

Haddix also noted that Jasmine’s brain did not have significant swelling. According to 

Dr. Haddix, “[b]rain swelling can occur very rapidly after a[n] injury is sustained, [and] 

that further supported . . . that she died not long after this injury was sustained and 

therefore did not have time for significant brain swelling to occur.” (Id. at 107.) In 

addition, Haddix testified she examined Jasmine’s thymus gland. In children, the thymus 

gland responds to stresses on the child such as injury or illness by shrinking. (Id. at 110.) 

Because the gland did not exhibit an appreciable amount of shrinkage, Haddix concluded 

Jasmine was not alive for very long after suffering her injuries. (Id. at 110-11.) 

Dr. Leetsma agreed with Haddix that Jasmine would have become unconscious 

shortly after sustaining her injuries. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 21, 30.) He 

based this opinion on his examination of slides from Jasmine’s cerebral cortex which 

showed numerous “red neurons.” (Id. at 16-21, 27-28.) According to Leetsma, red 

neurons are nerve cells that have been injured and take on a red color; they begin to 

develop about one to three hours after they are injured. (Id. at 16-18.) Leetsma said 

“[t]he distribution and extent and appearance of the red neurons tells me – the inference 

that I draw from this is that something globally happened to Jasmine Miller’s brain,” it 

was “globally damaged” by a lack of oxygen and/or circulation which occurred “no less 

than an hour, and two to three hours most likely” from when she was declared dead at 

3:50 p.m. (Id. at 21.) Thus, Jasmine would have been unconscious at about 1:50 p.m. 

and possibly even before that, over an hour before Johnson called 911. (Id. at 21-23; 

Lodgment No. 1 vol. 13, ECF No. 9-13 at 59-60.) On cross-examination, Leetsma 

admitted that there had been no “knock-down, drag-out definitive study” on red neurons, 

and that the theory was based on “case studies in which we know what happened, witness 

or some documentation of when an incident occurred, and then we look at the autopsy 

and we see what we got.” (Id. at 95; Lodgment No. 1 vol. 6 at 55-59.) 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

 45
32

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dr. Alexander agreed that Jasmine would likely have been unconscious 

immediately after sustaining her injuries and at the very least would not have looked like 

a normal child. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 62-63.) Alexander, like Haddix,

noted that Jasmine’s brain did not have a large amount of swelling, which indicated to 

Alexander that the brain had not been without oxygen for a significant amount of time 

and that the time between the injuries and her death was “relatively short . . . . There 

could not be hours that elapsed.” (Id. at 64.) Alexander did not agree, however, that 

children who had suffered fatal head injuries could have lucid intervals. He stated that 

the phenomena had not been reliably documented in children and he doubted whether 

such intervals were possible or likely in the case of fatal head injuries. (Supplemental 

Lodgments, ECF No. 14-1 at 25-26.) Further, he testified that the scientific literature 

indicated that lucid intervals do not occur with subdural hemorrhages, but they can occur 

with epidural hemorrhages. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7 at 113-15.) Jasmine did not have an 

epidural hemorrhage. (Id. at 115.)

Johnson has submitted a declaration from Dr. Haddix in which she states she 

would comment on her testimony as follows:

My testimony regarding an estimate of the development of symptoms 

(specifically unconsciousness) was “Seconds to maybe a couple of minutes. 

Not long at all.” (Page 291, lines 5-6.) In terms of the length of time that 

[Jasmine] may have continued to breath[e] after sustaining the injury, I 

testified, “I would say it could be up to maybe minutes. Really at the outside 

I would think a couple hours. But I would favor closer to a few minutes.” 

(Page 291, lines 14-16.) Taking into consideration all of the pathologic 

findings, including the presence of cerebral edema at only a microscopic 

level, the absence of acute hypoxic/ischemic changes in the brain and 

absence of inflammatory response in the scalp hemorrhage, I would still 

concur with my stated opinion that there was not an extended period of 

survival to incorporate the time frame prior to the arrival of Jasmine at Ms. 

Johnson’s residence.

(Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-6 at 5.)

Dr. Leetsma also addresses his trial testimony in the letter submitted by Johnson. 

Leetsma reiterates that with regard to the causes, evolution and significance of red 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 32 of

 45
33

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

neurons “there has never been a robust systemic study of the phenomenon sufficient to 

meet the most stringent standards that have been defined for evidence in some 

jurisdictions.” He goes on to state that studies have shown that “[red neurons] can occur 

in as little as 30 minutes after [an] injurious event,” but that no study “ha[s] been able to 

control for all of the relevant variables so as to define precisely all of the determinants in 

a given case that may cause ‘red’ neurons,” and that “it is probably not possible to 

reconstruct precisely the circumstances and their time course that may have been 

operating.” (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 304.) He concludes that “[w]ere I to offer 

testimony in this case today regarding ‘red’ neurons and their time course and clinical 

significance, I would have to point out the limits of time reconstruction on the basis of 

brain histology alone.” (Id.)

In addition, Johnson presents reports from four new experts who offer opinions as 

to how quickly Jasmine lost consciousness after she sustained her injuries. Dr. Plunkett, 

citing his own article, Fatal Pediatric Head Injuries Caused by Short Distance Falls, 

Plunkett, J., Am. J. Forens. Med Pathol. 2001, states that lucid intervals do occur in fatal 

head injury cases involving children. (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 252.) He also notes 

that scientific studies have found that red neurons can develop in less than an hour after a 

head injury. (Id. at 255.) Dr. Ophoven states that “[b]ecause of the unique findings of 

old and new bleeding in the same area, the conclusion that [Jasmine] would be 

immediately unconscious cannot be verified.” (Id. at 267.) Dr. Bonnell asserts that 

“[t]he claim by Drs. Haddix, Leetsma, and Alexander that a lucid interval could not have 

occurred has been disproven many times with journal articles demonstrating lucid 

intervals between injury and death.” (Id. at 273.) Dr. Reiber states that “the (red) 

neurons in the brain sections appear to be an artifact of staining and mechanical 

distortion,” which leads Reiber to conclude that “there is no clear medical evidence to 

support the contention, to a reasonable medical certainty, that the child must have been 

injured at least two hours before death and lingered in moribund state.” (Id. at 298-99.) 

Reiber, like Plunkett, notes that scientific studies, including one published around the 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 33 of

 45
34

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

time of Johnson’s trial, have found that red neurons have been seen in cases where the 

injury occurred less than an hour before. (Id. at 300.)

While the newly presented evidence calls into question the use of red neurons to 

determine when Jasmine’s injury occurred and how quickly she would have become 

unconscious, Drs. Haddix and Alexander did not base their opinions that Jasmine would 

have lost consciousness shortly after sustaining her injuries on the presence of red 

neurons. Dr. Haddix based her opinion on the lack of shrinkage in Jasmine’s thymus. 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 110-11.) Dr. Alexander based his opinion on the 

lack of significant brain swelling in Jasmine’s brain. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 

9-7 at 64.) Contrary to Johnson’s suggestion in her Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, 

while Drs. Haddix and Leetsma qualify their testimony, they do not retract it. None of 

Johnson’s experts refute the use of the thymus gland or brain swelling as methods of 

determining the length of time that elapsed between her injuries and her death. 

Moreover, Drs. Reiber and Ophoven both note that Jasmine’s brain had “mild” or 

“minimal” brain swelling, consistent with Drs. Haddix and Alexander’s observations of 

Jasmine’s brain. (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 265, 297; Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 

9-3 at 136-41, vol. 7 at 64.) Weighing the new evidence together with the old evidence, 

Johnson has not presented evidence so compelling that the Court can conclude no 

reasonable juror would have convicted her. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 301; McQuiggin, 569 

U.S. at 386. Rather, she has presented differing opinions as to what the medical evidence 

shows and the various causes of certain injuries.

Johnson also presents new evidence she contends supports her claim that Jasmine 

was alive and struggling to breathe when she called 911. She has provided an analysis of 

the 911 tape by an audio technician, Michael Gburzynski, who states that he found a 

noise on the tape which “fell within the parameters established in the original bandpass 

(the range of human voice) . . . at the point in the recording where the female caller asks 

the male operator ‘did you hear that?’ and the female caller then states ‘that was her.’” 

(Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-5 at 21.) In addition, Johnson has provided a letter from Dr. 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 34 of

 45
35

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

George Nichols who listened to the enhancement of the 911 call and states that he heard 

“noises which I have heard on other 911 tapes of children struggling to breathe through 

partially obstructed airways.” He contends that the tape “proves [Jasmine] was alive at 

the time of the call and at least attempting to breathe.” (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 293.) 

But Dr. Haddix testified that although in her opinion Jasmine would have become almost 

immediately unconscious after sustaining her injuries, she thought it was “possible that 

involuntary activity such as breathing and heart rate were maintained for some period of 

time, but she would clearly look unconscious.” (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 

100-01.) Dr. Leetsma testified that once Jasmine sustained her injuries, a process began 

in which the skull fracture caused a subdural hemorrhage and brain swelling which led to 

Jasmine becoming unconscious and “respiratory depression, maybe circulatory failure.” 

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF No. 9-5 at 31.) Jasmine would not, however, have stopped 

breathing instantly upon becoming unconscious. (Id.) Dr. Alexander also testified that it 

would have taken one to two hours for Jasmine to die, and thus stop breathing, after 

sustaining her injuries. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 71.) Upon arrival, the 

paramedics reported that Jasmine was “lifeless” and “appeared to be dead.” (Lodgment 

No. 1 vol. 4, ECF No. 9-4 at 36-38.) Thus, the new evidence does not directly contradict 

evidence presented at Johnson’s trial. Both things can be true at the same time – that 

Jasmine was unconscious very shortly after sustaining her injuries but continued to 

breathe for some time until she finally succumbed to her injuries and died shortly before 

paramedics arrived. 

c. Short Falls and Prior Head Injuries

Johnson argues new evidence about the severity of injuries children can receive 

after a short fall establishes that the prosecution experts’ testimony that Jasmine could not 

have sustained her injuries from the high chair fall was false. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 104-10, 

147-51.) She contends that “[i]t is now the overwhelming consensus among experts 

publishing biomechanical studies on infant head injury that impact, as with a short fall, 

creates 40 to 100 times the maximum G-force generated by shaking.” (Id. at 108.) 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 35 of

 45
36

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Johnson also argues the experts at her trial inaccurately testified that Jasmine’s older 

subdural hemorrhage did not contribute to her death. (Id. at 149-51.) In addition, 

Johnson contends current research establishes that a child with a chronic subdural 

hemorrhage has a lower threshold for re-injury and a higher possibility of death from a 

new head injury. (Id.)

At trial, Dr. Haddix testified that to produce the injuries seen in Jasmine – the 

“internal disruptions to the brain,” and the “disconnections of the basic neurological 

structures within the brain” – “a very significant, very substantial force . . . like a motor 

vehicle accident, an unrestrained child in a motor vehicle accident” would have been 

required. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 3, ECF No. 9-3 at 97.) She also testified, however, that 

children can get a skull fracture from a short fall, but that unlike Jasmine’s complex, 

“punch-out” fracture they are “[u]sually . . . linear, again line-like fracture[s] . . which are 

not displaced, meaning no portion of it is inset more than the other . . . and they are not 

complex, meaning that they don’t have multiple intersecting fractures or unusual features 

. . . .” (Id. at 98.) She further testified that although skull fractures and subdural 

hemorrhages can result from short falls of two to four feet, she did not think a fall from a 

high chair would produce the neurological disruptions seen in Jasmine’s brain. (Id. at 99-

100.) While she testified that “you don’t die from short falls” on direct examination, on 

cross-examination she clarified that although short falls can result in skull fractures, 

subdural hemorrhages and possibly retinal hemorrhages, “generally speaking” they do 

not cause fatal head injuries. (Id. at 168.) Haddix opined that both fractures, the retinal 

hemorrhages and the new subdural hemorrhage were all from the same, recent event. (Id.

at 88.) Haddix did not believe the old subdural hemorrhage had anything to do with 

Jasmine’s death because it was much smaller than the new hemorrhage and was “well on 

its way to healing.” (Id. at 117.) In a declaration submitted by Johnson, Dr. Haddix

qualifies her trial testimony by stating that she has “personally been involved in two cases 

where I thought a short distance fall could have in fact been fatal,” but that such incidents 

are “rare” and that “the potential lethality of short distance falls is far from universally 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 36 of

 45
37

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

accepted by forensic pathologists, neuropathologists and pediatricians.” (Pet., ECF No. 

1-6 at 5.)

Dr. Leetsma agreed that the majority of falls by children do not result in anything 

more than bruises but it is possible for a child to suffer subdural hemorrhages, skull 

fractures, brain swelling and death from a three-foot fall. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 5, ECF 

No. 9-5 at 85-86.) He cited biomedical studies in which it was demonstrated that an 

infant could sustain a skull fracture and subdural hemorrhage from a 30-inch fall and that 

if the fall was onto a surface that was not flat, it could produce a complex fracture. (Id. at 

101.) Leetsma also testified that chronic subdural hemorrhages can spontaneously rebleed and eventually cause death. (Id. at 116.) He agreed that Jasmine had symptoms of 

a chronic subdural hemorrhage in the days leading up to her death. (Id. at 126-27, 129-

30.) In Jasmine’s case, however, he did not think that the old subdural hemorrhage had 

spontaneously re-bled, but he did think it was possible that the injury sustained while she 

was in Johnson’s care caused the old subdural to re-bleed. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 6, ECF 

No. 9-6 at 6-8.) He could not rule out that Johnson’s version of how Jasmine sustained 

her injuries was possible but he did not think her injuries matched with Johnson’s version 

of events. (Id. at 17, 41.) 

Like Dr. Haddix, Dr. Alexander testified that children can get fractures from short 

falls but they are generally short, linear fractures. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 

at 48.) Jasmine’s skull fracture was complex, with a “punched-out” portion. (Id. at 52-

53.) The complex nature of the left fracture, the location of the left fracture, the fact that 

there were multiple fractures and the extent of the left fracture led Alexander to conclude 

a fall from a high chair could not have produced the injuries. (Id. at 54, 57.) In addition, 

the occipital bone, where the “punch-out” fracture was located, is a thicker bone which 

would require more force to fracture. (Id. at 85.) Moreover, the injuries to Jasmine’s 

brain were “more global,” and thus Alexander believed a “major slamming force” or 

force equivalent to a “three-story fall” would be necessary to produce the injuries seen in 

Jasmine plus some element of shaking. (Id. at 55, 59-61.) He did not believe Jasmine’s 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 37 of

 45
38

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

injuries could have occurred from a short fall. (Id. at 83.) And he did not believe that the 

combination of injuries seen in Jasmine – the retinal hemorrhages, the brain injury and 

her death – would be caused by a fall from a high chair. (Id.) He also did not believe the 

old subdural hemorrhage contributed to her death because the “older blood there does not 

mean anything in particular to the brain, at most it’s just a bit of irritation to the brain . . . 

it’s not pushing the brain to one side [and] there is not mechanical pressure on the brain 

from that.” (Id. at 82.) 

Using the high chair and a piece of Johnson’s carpet, biomechanical engineer Dr. 

Ward attempted to re-create the accident as Johnson described it. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 

8, ECF No. 9-8 at 80.) Ward has extensive experience in biomechanics, specifically in 

head and neck injuries associated with car accidents. (Id. at 67-68.) Based on her own 

research and “the energy available [which is] only the weight of the child multiplied by 

the fall height,” she did not believe Jasmine’s injuries could not have resulted from a fall 

from the high chair. (Id. at 121.) She also testified that “of the hundreds and hundreds of 

cases that have been collected and reported upon, only one percent have skull fracture 

and none of those have brain damage.” (Id.)

In the letter he submitted in support of Johnson’s Petition, Dr. Plunkett states that 

based on his own research, low velocity impacts can cause fatal injuries (Petr’s Ex., 

ECF No. 1-4 at 252.) He also states that the understanding of biomechanics as they apply 

to infants has significantly changed since Johnson’s trial. Specifically, he notes that “the 

mechanism of head injury in an infant or toddler is fundamentally different from that in 

an older child or adult” because an infant’s skull is pliable and can thus “inbend,” causing 

the infant’s brain to “deform and move” and can result in subdural hemorrhages, 

intercranial pressure and death. (Id. at 254.) Plunkett asserts that there is a decreased 

threshold for re-injury if a chronic subdural hemorrhage, like Jasmine had, is present until 

the hemorrhage is completely healed. (Id. at 250.) He also states that biomechanical 

engineer Dr. Carly Ward, who testified for the prosecution in Johnson’s case, was 

incorrect when she said that infants have a higher tolerance to head injury than adults and 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 38 of

 45
39

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that low velocity impacts do not cause significant injury or death. (Id. at 255.) He 

concludes that “there is no evidence to refute Ms. Johnson’s assertion that an accidental 

fall from a high chair caused Jasmine’s injury or death,” although he concedes that “there 

are other ways to cause her injury, including an intentional impact or an accidental 

‘drop.’” (Id. at 256.) 

Dr. Ophoven states in her report that Dr. Haddix was wrong when she testified that 

the forces required to produce Jasmine’s injuries are “similar to unrestrained children in 

motor vehicle accidents, children run over by cars and falls from several story 

building[s].” (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 266.) She further states that “[t]here is no[] 

evidence or medical literature to support these prejudicial statements and current 

biomechanical literature has demonstrated that these statements are not correct. Fractures 

of this nature can occur from a household fall or simple fall on an unyielding surface.” 

(Id.) In another portion of her report, she states that Dr. Haddix’s testimony “that a fall 

from a high chair was insufficient to cause significant injury” was “contrary to current 

literature and current biomechanical science.” (Id. at 267.) Ophoven also criticizes 

Haddix for her opinion that the old subdural hemorrhage had nothing to do with 

Jasmine’s death. (Id.) Ophoven states that Jasmine had a “pre-existing head injury with 

re-bleeding in the same area of the head,” and opines that “[i]f the child had a significant 

pre-existing injury and sustained a two-foot fall with head impact, front or back, [it] 

could result in abrupt alterations in the autoregulatory system within the head and cause 

rapidly fatal results.” (Id. at 268.) She also appears to conclude that the “punch-out” 

fracture is not a recent injury, disagreeing with every other expert who has expressed an 

opinion in this case by asserting that “[w]ith the exception of [a] very small bruise on the 

eye and back of the head there is no evidence of significant recent blunt force injury.” 

(Id. at 268.) 

Dr. Bonnell agrees with Dr. Ophoven. In his report, he states that Drs. Haddix, 

Alexander and Ward’s testimony that Jasmine could not have died from a short fall was 

incorrect. (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 272.) He also states that “biomechanical studies 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 39 of

 45
40

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

have shown this testimony is scientifically invalid and research has proven the opposite, 

namely, that short falls can kill.” (Id.) 

Dr. Reiber states in his report that because Jasmine’s skull fractures were 

“basically linear fractures which stop at suture lines . . . the force necessary for causation 

is significantly less than initially stated (3-4 story fall or greater).” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 

298.) He goes on to state that “[l]inear fractures in this category may be seen in falls of a 

few (3-6) feet. Although falls of 3-4 feet rarely produce fatal subdural hematomas, such 

an outcome is not impossible,” and “[t]he possibility of rebleeding in a pre-existing 

subdural neomembrane make a worse outcome from a lesser impact more likely, 

although at least a moderate force would still be expected.” (Id.) He disagrees with Dr. 

Alexander that Jasmine’s brain showed possible diffuse axonal injury. (Id. at 297.) He 

concludes that “there is no clear evidence to link a severe shaking with the episode of 

fatal impact, although a milder shaking episode might be contemporaneous.” (Id. at 299.)

Finally Johnson has submitted a report from Dr. Chris Van Ee., a biomedical 

engineer. (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4.) In his 2008 report, Van Ee states that based on 

scientific studies he cites from 1984 to 2004, “for the infant head, there is strong data to 

support that skull fracture is likely for falls onto a hard surface of 82 cm (32 inches) or 

more and that it is unlikely to occur for falls of 30 cm (12 inches) or less. The critical 

drop height for skull fracture of the infant most likely lies somewhere in between 12 

inches and 32 inches for hard impact surfaces.” (Id. at 282.) Van Ee goes on to discuss 

his own study of high chair falls. He states that “[n]ormal everyday experience with 

children and falls indicates quite clearly, that a severe head injury outcome is, thankfully, 

a rare occurrence for children for the broad spectrum of falls as they occur in the real 

world,” but that “in the relatively rare case where a severe direct head impact occurs 

similar to the experiments described herein, a severe/fatal head injury may be the result.” 

(Id. at 286.) He concludes that “a fall off of a high chair of a normal healthy child of 6 

months of age resulting in a direct head impact has the potential to cause serious and even 

fatal head injury consistent with the head injury reported for Jasmine.” (Id.) It is not 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 40 of

 45
41

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

clear whether Van Ee’s study sheds any light on whether the accident Johnson described 

could have produced Jasmine’s injuries, however, because from the photos he provided to 

illustrate his study, it appears he only tested whether a child who was standing up in the 

high chair could have hit the back of her head on the floor when she fell. (Petr’s. Ex., 

ECF No. 1-4 at 287.) There is no dispute that six-month old Jasmine, who Johnson said 

could not even sit upright in the high chair, could not have been standing in the high 

chair. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 13, ECF No. 9-13 at 49.) Van Ee also states that [g]iven the

likely possibility that Jasmine was still healing from a previously sustained severe head 

injury [the old subdural hemorrhage], she would likely have increased susceptibility to 

new trauma” and an “increasing likelihood that an accidental fall from the high chair 

could result in a fatal head injury.” (Id.)

The new evidence regarding short falls from Drs. Plunkett, Ophoven, Bonnell, 

Reiber and Van Ee contradicts much of the trial testimony of Drs. Haddix and Alexander.

What these new experts essentially assert, however, is that it is rare but possible that a 

serious head injury like the one suffered by Jasmine could result from a short fall, not that 

it was likely or certain. Nevertheless, there remain medical experts who believe that the 

skull fractures, subdural hemorrhages and retinal hemorrhages suffered by Jasmine, taken 

as a whole, could not have resulted from a fall from a high chair. For example, a 2015 

article in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, while acknowledging “[e]stimating a fall 

height threshold for serious [head injury] is a debated topic,” found that “low height falls, 

including simple stair falls, rarely cause impaired consciousness, skull fractures or 

[intercranial injury].” (Head Injury From Falls in Children Younger than 6 Years of Age, 

Burrows, P., et al., Arch. Dis. Child, Aug. 2015). Dr. Levin’s report notes that the 

specific type of retinal hemorrhages he saw in Jasmine’s eyes are “highly indicative of 

abuse.” (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-5 at 131.) Further, a 2018 article in The Journal of 

Forensic Science and Medicine examined the use of biomechanics to determine how an 

injury occurred and concluded that “biomechanic models are not designed to ‘prove’ 

whether a proposed lethal mechanism does or does not exist in vivo.” (Brain Injury 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 41 of

 45
42

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Biomechanics and Abusive Head Trauma, Castellani, R., et al. Journal of Forensic 

Science and Medicine, Apr./June 2018). The authors also state that “[e]xtreme caution, if 

not skepticism, in the role of biomechanical engineering in the reconstruction of 

unwitnessed and complex injury scenarios is warranted.” (Id.) 

The standard Johnson must meet is high. She must show that ‘“it is more likely 

than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted [her] in light of the new 

evidence.’” McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at 399, quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327. Despite the 

fact that Johnson’s experts opine that a fall from a high chair could produce Jasmine’s 

injuries, there remain reliable experts who believe that Jasmine could not have sustained 

her injuries from a fall from a high chair, and a reasonable juror could credit those 

experts over the experts who believe Jasmine’s injuries could be from the high chair fall. 

“The gateway should open only when a petition presents ‘evidence of innocence so 

strong that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial unless the court is 

also satisfied that the trial was free of nonharmless constitutional error.’” Id. at 401, 

quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 316. The evidence Johnson has presented is not sufficient to 

meet this standard.

 e. Wormian Bone and Improper Intubation

Johnson contends the “punch-out” fracture was not a fracture at all but simply a 

skull variation. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 151.) As support for this contention, Johnson points 

to Dr. Ophoven’s report which states that the location of the “punch-out” fracture is also 

the “typical location and description of a Wormian bone – not a fracture but a common 

variation of skull development.” (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 265.) A Wormian bone is 

“a small irregular inconstant plate of bone interposed in a suture between large cranial 

bones.” Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary, available at https://www.merriamwebster.com/medical/Wormian%20bone. Dr. Ophoven’s statement does not establish 

that the “punch-out” fracture is actually a Wormian bone, only that the fracture is in the 

same location as a Wormian bone. As the Supreme Court noted in, “under the gateway 

standard . . . , the newly presented evidence may indeed call into question the credibility 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 42 of

 45
43

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of the witnesses presented at trial,” and “[i]n such a case, the habeas court may have to 

make some credibility assessments.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 330. Because no other expert 

disputes the presence of a “punch-out” fracture of Jasmine’s skull, the Court concludes 

there is insufficient reliable evidence to support Johnson’s contention that the fracture is 

actually a Wormian bone. This allegedly new evidence is not so compelling that no 

reasonable juror would convict Johnson had they had this information. McQuiggin, 569 

U.S. at 399.

Johnson also argues the record establishes that Jasmine suffered from esophageal 

intubation which occurs when the intubation tube is placed in the esophagus and not the 

windpipe. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 122-24, 152-53; Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 271.) If 

improperly placed in this manner, air is pumped in to the stomach and not the lungs. 

(Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-4 at 271.) Johnson points to Dr. Haddix’s autopsy notes and the 

radiology report to support her contention that the intubation tube was in Jasmine’s 

esophagus and not her trachea. (Pet., ECF No. 152-54; Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-5 at 18.) 

Paramedic Caroline Gain testified her partner, Debbie Munson, placed the intubation tube 

into Jasmine’s using a laryngoscope to direct the tube into the trachea when they arrived

at Johnson’s residence. (Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 8.) Upon arrival at the 

emergency room, Dr. Hoecker noted that “the placement of the endotracheal tube was 

confirmed by direct laryngoscopy, and it did appear that the endotracheal tube was 

between the cords.” (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-5 at 15.) Dr. Haddix’s autopsy notes do state 

that “[t]he oral intubation tube terminates mid-esophagus.” (Petr’s Ex., ECF No. 1-5 at 

9.) But Gain testified as follows:

With babies there is no cuff on the bottom of the tube, so when you put air 

into the lungs, it can go into the stomach, too. It mainly goes into the lungs, 

but, but it could go in the stomach, and it can cause regurgitation. 

So we ended up with some baby oatmeal coming up through her nose 

and through the tubes, and we suctioned that out.

(Lodgment No. 1 vol. 7, ECF No. 9-7 at 12.)

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 43 of

 45
44

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Like Johnson’s assertion regarding the Wormian bone, the record does not support 

a conclusion that Jasmine suffered from esophageal intubation or that it played any role 

in her death. 

IV. CONCLUSION

In order to pass through the Schlup gateway, Johnson must establish ‘“it is more 

likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted [her] in light of the new 

evidence,’” and that the “‘evidence of innocence [is] so strong that a court cannot have 

confidence in the outcome of the trial unless the court is also satisfied that the trial was 

free of nonharmless constitutional error.’” McQuiggin, 569 U.S at 399, 401, quoting 

Schlup, 513 at 316, 327. The new evidence Johnson has presented consists of medical 

opinions that either repeat evidence that was testified to at trial or which are the subject of 

a continuing, spirited debate within the medical community. While the scientific 

understanding of the mechanism of injury for AHT and what injuries are associated with 

it has evolved significantly since Johnson’s 1999 trial, there remains medical and other 

professionals who question whether infants can sustain the kinds of injuries suffered by 

Jasmine from a short fall and who believe injuries such as hers are indicative of 

intentional rather than accidental trauma. Moreover, in addition to the medical and 

biomechanical evidence in Johnson’s case, the Court must consider Johnson’s initial false 

statements to police and the testimony of other parents of children in Johnson’s daycare. 

Weighing the new evidence together with the old evidence, it is not sufficient for the 

Court to conclude that no reasonable juror would have convicted her. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 

316. The Court does not find that evidence of Johnson’s innocence is so strong that the 

Court does not have confidence in the outcome. Id. at 327. Accordingly, the Petition is 

DENIED. 

Rule 11 of the Rules Following 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require the District Court to 

“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 

applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (West 2019). A COA will issue when the 

petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 44 of

 45
45

19cv1036 GPC (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§ 2253 (West 2019); Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir. 2005). A “substantial 

showing” requires a demonstration that “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 

975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, 

the Court concludes Johnson has made the required showing, and therefore a certificate 

of appealability is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01036-GPC-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 45 of

 45