Court: Mom convicted in death should get new trialBy MEG KINNARD
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
COLUMBIA — A woman convicted of homicide by child abuse after her stillborn baby tested positive for cocaine should get a new trial because of several mistakes her attorneys made, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday. Attorneys for Regina McKnight did not introduce the baby's autopsy report into evidence and failed to rebut the prosecution's medical expert, the court said in the unanimous decision. A spokesman for the state attorney general's office said he didn't know whether prosecutors would appeal with only 15 days to decide. McKnight, 31, was convicted in May 2001 and sentenced to 12 years in prison after her second trial. Her first trial ended in a mistrial when the judge found out that two jurors had looked up medical information on the Internet. During the initial trial, a cardiac pathologist rebutted the prosecution's medical expert and said cocaine was "not as dangerous as the medical community once believed," Chief Justice Jean Toal wrote in overturning McKnight's conviction. Toal also noted that the doctor testified that several natural causes for the baby's death could not be ruled out. McKnight's attorneys chose not to call that doctor or "any other expert to rebut or discredit the medical studies cited by the State's experts," Toal wrote. McKnight's attorney also never thought to use a videotape of the doctor's previous testimony. "You have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They should have to be able to show the metabolized cocaine caused the death, not just rule out other factors," Wise said. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 11 comment(s)
Posted by Early on May 13, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sad, very sad
Posted by ColdBeer on May 13, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Chief Justice Jean Toal is part of the problem.
Posted by Chief_SittingBull on May 13, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
“Toal also noted that the doctor testified that several natural causes for the baby's death could not be ruled out.”
Natural causes exacerbated by cocaine…
I have known women [and their families] to go to great lengths to have children and she decided to kill hers...pathetic. Save the time and the money and put Ms. Regina in a [gas] chamber.
Posted by Slick50 on May 13, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Get the best verdict money can buy.
Posted by Charles_Town on May 13, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So the mistakes made by the lawyers are more severe than the mistake(s) the mother made when she was pregnant?
Posted by Early on May 13, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charles_Town, seems to be the way it is in our entire justice system! I for one am tired of the technicality thing!
Posted by confederatethornman on May 13, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A noose will fit around a woman's neck too.
Posted by eyfigueroa on May 13, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of how heinous the crime, the LEGAL system (not JUSTICE system)should be held to a strict standard.
Retry this piece of garbage CORRECTLY and let the LEGAL system do its job.
Hopefully the new jury will come to the same conclusion the others did, this piece of filth, took cocaine while pregnant and regardless of supposed cause of death, the cocaine would have played a part in it.
Posted by abitskeptical on May 14, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Agree, agree, agree & I'll add,
If this women deserves a new trial because of her crappy ass lawyer, then let the games begin & lets open the flood gates to the SC Supreme Court.
Posted by Eve1 on May 14, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Medical science shows that cocaine and most other illegal substances are much less harmful to a fetus than many legal substances (tobacco and alcohol being two that are proven to cause much harm). But does that mean we should throw all women who use any substance in jail during their pregnancies? How is that going to promote the healthiest outcome for mothers or babies? Did you know 75% of women who use substances have experienced childhood sexual or physical abuse? And that there are very few programs in the state that will even accept pregnant women for treatment?
If you really care about promoting the birth of healthy babies you will advocate for better and more accessible drug treatment, not prison, for these women.
In the case of Ms. McKnight, medical evidence shows an unrelated infection was most likely the cause of her stillbirth. In any other homicide case, a person could not be convicted of homicide if there was reasonable doubt that something else caused the death. So why do we make an exception (and no other state in the union has such a punitive law) for pregnant women who use substances?
Please set aside your vicious emotional attacks, look at the facts and start being part of the solution to assure all women who wish to bear children, regardless of circumstances, be assisted in having healthy pregnancies.
Posted by abitskeptical on May 14, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My post was a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the inconsistency & unequally applied laws & legal opinions which lead to an un-just system of justice.
I know of more than a few cases where defense counsel was so utterly incompeten, opposing counsel & the judge should have stopped the trial. But that would have been inconvenient so they allowed that to happen. Most lay people who try to prove incompetent counsel run up against the good ole boy system...lawyers do like to protect their own.