Here are the findings from the court on November 18th 2002
Quote:
|
The record in this case includes no observation from any witness and no statement from defendant that the baby ever moved or cried after completion of the birth process. All of the pathologists agreed that the physical evidence was consistent with death during birth, just as it was consistent with live birth. The prosecution's pathologist found that the baby had been born alive because a witness thought he heard it cry for one or two seconds. But the single, short cry the witness thought he heard, if it occurred, may have occurred before complete separation from the mother, and therefore it is not sufficient to prove live birth. Because the evidence cannot support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of live birth, we must reverse the conviction.
|
Here are the court documents:
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ml/1000273.htm
The reason this case is so publicized is that many states support a "Live Birth Act" which Illonois does not currently have. Please note though that in this particular instance no proof of life has been found. A group currently fighting "Live Birth Abortion" of which the author of this column is the spokes person is spearheading a movment to have this case among others re-tried. It may be re-issued to the Illonois Supreme Court, (if new evidence is found - or procedural error), or it could be taken to a higher level court... someone more familiar with the US judicial system please jump in here and fill in the procedure and requirements for that.
I will refrain from offering an opinion on this topic, because I do not respond well to lables / insults. "Liberal" means many different things to different people (especially of different countires), but in the context of that article it is an insult and probably not worth rising to.