by TChris

While some complain that "junk science" promotes frivolous lawsuits, a British court has recognized the far greater harm that results when prosecutors rely upon bad science to obtain a criminal conviction. Overturning the convictions of Angela Cannings for the murder of her two babies, the court ruled that substituting theory for fact caused Cannings' conviction to rest "almost entirely on a tidy presumption of guilt, rather than on solid evidence."

The popular theory at issue: "one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is a murder, unless proven otherwise."

The hypothesis, which is widely quoted, became known in Britain as "Meadow's law." But those assumptions are now being re-examined.

Cannings' first child died after thirteen weeks. Her second child died after seven weeks. As is often the case, doctors could not explain the deaths. Her third child, who was closely monitored, experienced breathing problems but survived after being rushed to a hospital. She is now eight years old.

Cannings' son Matthew was born in 1999. When Matthew was four months old, an alarm alerted Cannings to the fact that he was not breathing properly. Cannings called her husband, then "sat in shock until he rushed home and called an ambulance." Matthew died. Cannings' daughter was removed from her home and Cannings was charged with murdering Matthew and another child. The evidence consisted of "a suspicious pattern of deaths" and Cannings' decision to call her husband, not an ambulance, when she discovered that Matthew wasn't breathing properly.

The prosecution's expert witness, relying on the theory that three deaths is proof of murder unless the parents prove otherwise, told the jury that his clinical diagnosis "would be this was characteristic of smothering."

But he had never seen the babies or interviewed the parents and, as the appellate court pointed out, there was a dearth of evidence: no cause of death could be determined; there was no sign the babies had been injured; and there was no history of parental violence or abuse. In fact, relatives and friends described Mrs. Cannings as a loving mother.

Although other experts advanced other opinions, Cannings was found guilty. Thankfully, after Cannings spent twenty months in prison, the appellate court ruled that a suspicious pattern of deaths isn't enough to prove that a murder was committed. The court said:

"Unless we are sure of guilt, the dreadful possibility always remains that a mother, already brutally scarred by the unexplained death or deaths of her babies, may find herself in prison for life for killing them, when she should not be there at all. In our community, and in any civilized community, that is abhorrent."

The decision prompted the British attorney general to announce "a thorough review of 258 criminal cases similar to Ms. Canning's case," although not all of those cases will likely be revisited. As tragic and emotional as the death of a child always is, mere suspicion must never supplant proof in a criminal prosecution. This case is an important reminder of that bedrock principle.