A Crying Baby Is Not Alive?

[tinybear]

Quote by: Karin Did anyone bother to fact check? This case exists yes, but the decision was based on reasonable doubt that murder occurred, not seperatopn from the mother. Read the transcript and be informed. [url]http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2002/1stDistrict/November/Html/1000273.htm[/ur edited: sorry abut bumping up an old debte, it just frustrated me that no one noticed.

This was the reason the Court gave for quashing the conviction:

"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."

Impliedly, if not expressly, the issue of whether the baby cried before or after separation from the mother was a crucial factor in the decision of the Court.

[Mia]

Quote by: tinybear Because the evidence cannot support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of live birth, we must reverse the conviction."

Who made this statement? The judge, defense attorney, or someone else? I haven't seen the transcripts. It's important to know 1) who said this and 2) if it was the judge, whether he was referring to live birth being dependant on separation from the mother or the lack of clear evidence the baby was born alive at all.

From what I've read in here, the latter appears to have not been proven, whether or not the former was taken into consideration, which would still have brought a not guilty verdict.

I am surprised, as I mentioned, that the circumstantial evidence was not taken into account.

[Karin]

Quote by: tinybear This was the reason the Court gave for quashing the conviction: "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." Impliedly, if not expressly, the issue of whether the baby cried before or after separation from the mother was a crucial factor in the decision of the Court.

[quote]Because the evidence cannot support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of live birth, we must reverse the conviction."[/QUOTE]

this is where the issue gets confused, or more accurately, twisted, by the anti-choice lobby. The issue is not whether the mom killed a baby before or after the separation, it is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove ANY murder at all. Had the mother taken a baseball bat while still pushing and smashed the baby's head in, she would have been charged with murder, even though the baby had not been separated first. The point of this case, is that no one knew for sure if the baby was even still alive after it came out.

[Karin]

Quote by: Mia Who made this statement? The judge, defense attorney, or someone else? I haven't seen the transcripts. It's important to know 1) who said this and 2) if it was the judge, whether he was referring to live birth being dependant on separation from the mother or the lack of clear evidence the baby was born alive at all. From what I've read in here, the latter appears to have not been proven, whether or not the former was taken into consideration, which would still have brought a not guilty verdict. I am surprised, as I mentioned, that the circumstantial evidence was not taken into account.

It is in the decision. Decisions are written by judges.