Opinion ID: 4241419
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State's Shaken Baby Theory

Text: The State rejected Fero's theory that Kaed caused Brynn's leg and head injuries. So did the jury. That was probably because the State presented expert testimony from six medical professionals all opining to a reasonable degree of In rePers. Restraint ofFero (Heidi Charlene), No. 92975-1 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting) medical certainty that Kaed lacked the strength to exert the magnitude of force necessary to cause Brynn's head injuries. The State's experts acknowledged that Kaed could have caused the bruises on Brynn's face and pelvic area by jumping on her or hitting her with a toy hammer or a wooden cane,2 VRP(Mar. 11, 2003) at 204-06, 218-19(Dr. Lukschu), and could have fractured her leg by tackling or knocking her down, VRP(Mar. 13, 2003)at 26 (Dr. Bennett), But those activities, the experts testified, could not explain Brynn's head injuries. Specifically, the State's experts testified that it was physically impossible for Kaed to cause Brynn's head injuries. Id. at 34-35 (Dr. Bennett); 2 VRP (Mar. 11, 2003) at 196, 200 (Dr. Lukschu); 1 VRP (Mar. 12, 2003) at 64, 72 (Dr. Gorecki). According to these experts, a substantial amount of force—equivalent to the force involved in an automobile accident or a fall from a multistory building—was needed to produce retinal hemorrhaging, brain bleeding, and brain swelling in a child. See id. at 84, 96 (Dr. Ockner); VRP (Mar. 13, 2003) at 50 (Dr. Grewe), 63, 75 (Dr. Goodman). This ruled out Kaed as a possible suspect since a four-and-a-half-yearold could not produce such substantial force. 10 In re Pers. Restraint ofFero (Heidi Charlene), No. 92975-1 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting) The State's experts also ruled out all other adults as potential suspects. Those experts opined that, given the amount offorce needed to cause Brynn's head injuries, Brynn would have lost consciousness either immediately,2 VRP(Mar. 11, 2003)at 195,229(Dr. Lukschu); 1 VRP(Mar. 12,2003)at 97(Dr. Ocloier),74(Dr. Gorecki), or at least within 2 or 5 hours after injury, 70 (Dr. Gorecki)(2 hours); VRP (Mar. 13, 2003) at 28 (Dr. Bennett)(5 hours). This expert testimony left Fero as the only possible suspect because she was the only adult with Brynn for over six hours from 3:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. Based on this expert testimony, the State theorized that Fero—a normally loving caregiver—became so frustrated with Brynn while she was giving her a bath around 7:00 p.m. that she beat the toddler, twisted her leg until it fractured, and later around 9:45 p.m. when Brynn would not stop fussing over her injured leg, violently shook Brynn into immediate unconsciousness. 5B VRP(Mar. 17, 2003)at 160,16263. The State advanced this theory despite testimony from Brynn's parents describing Fero as a great mom, proclaiming how glad they were to have her as a babysitter, and confirming how they never saw her lose her cool with any children, including their daughter, Brynn. See 1 VRP(Mar. 11, 2003) at 131, 160. 11 In re Pers. Restraint ofFero (Heidi Charlene), No. 92975-1 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting) Since there was no eyewitness testimony to support the State's shaken baby theory, the jury must have convicted Fero based on the strength of the State's six expert witnesses. Those experts overwhelmingly confirmed that the force necessary to produce Brynn's head injuries had to have been inflicted intentionally, by an adult, and during the period when Fero was the only adult present.^