海角大神

The US Supreme Court summarily reversed a federal appeals court on Monday in a ruling that will force a California grandmother back to prison for the alleged shaking death of her infant grandson.

The 6-to-3 vote marks the third time the justices have reversed a panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in the same case, Cavazos v. Smith (10-1115).

The case involves the conviction of Shirley Ree Smith for allegedly shaking and killing 7-week-old Etzel. At her 1997 trial, jurors heard conflicting testimony about whether the infant died of shaken baby syndrome (SBS) or of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The jury decided that Ms. Smith had caused the death. She was subsequently sentenced to serve 15 years to life in prison.

The verdict was upheld by the trial judge, a state appeals court, and a federal judge. But the Ninth Circuit panel disagreed with the jury鈥檚 interpretation of the evidence, and reversed the conviction.

In vacating that opinion, the Supreme Court essentially scolded the Ninth Circuit for reaching a legal conclusion that was 鈥減lainly wrong,鈥� and for substituting its view of the evidence in place of the jury鈥檚 conclusions.

鈥淚t is the responsibility of the jury 鈥� not the court 鈥� to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial,鈥� the court said in an unsigned opinion. The justices said a reviewing court may set aside a jury鈥檚 verdict for insufficient evidence only when 鈥渘o rational trier of fact could have agreed with the jury.鈥�

鈥淏ecause rational people can sometimes disagree, the inevitable consequence of this settled law is that judges will sometimes encounter convictions that they believe to be mistaken, but that they must nonetheless uphold,鈥� the court said.

鈥淭he court of appeals in this case substituted its own judgment for that of a California jury on the question of whether the prosecution鈥檚 or the defense鈥檚 expert witnesses more persuasively explained the cause of a death.鈥�

In a dissent, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer said justice is not served by the high court鈥檚 reversal. They said they would allow the Ninth Circuit panel鈥檚 decision to stand.

鈥淲hat does this court achieve other than to prolong Smith鈥檚 suffering and her separation from her family,鈥� Justice Ginsburg wrote in dissent. 鈥淚s this court鈥檚 intervention really necessary?鈥�

Ginsburg said new information (obtained since Smith鈥檚 trial) about shaken baby syndrome 鈥渃asts grave doubt鈥� on the charges against Smith. She added that uncontraverted evidence shows that Smith poses no threat to her family or others.

The unsigned majority decision counters this point, saying that considerations of whether Smith has been punished enough and poses no danger to society would perhaps be grounds for executive clemency.

But the majority justices concluded: 鈥淭he decision below cannot be allowed to stand.鈥�

The court noted: 鈥淚n light of the evidence presented at trial, the Ninth Circuit plainly erred in concluding that the jury鈥檚 verdict was irrational, let alone that it was unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to think otherwise.鈥�

鈥淒oubts about whether Smith is in fact guilty are understandable. But it is not the job of this court, and was not that of the Ninth Circuit, to decide whether the state鈥檚 theory was correct,鈥� the court said. 鈥淭he jury decided that question, and its decision is supported by the record.鈥�