Alma Caldavado v. New York

Addressing what has become best known as “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS), in Cavazos v. Smith, Justice Ginsburg observed that “[d]oubt has increased in the medical community ‘over whether infants can be fatally injured through shaking alone.’” 565 U.S. 1, 13 (2011) (Ginsburg, J., joined by Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., dissenting) (quoting State v. Edmunds, 2008 WI App. 33, ¶15, 308 Wis.2d 374, 385, 746 N.W.2d 590, 596 (2008)). That is because [b]y the end of 1998, it had become apparent that “there was inadequate scientific evidence to come to a firm conclusion on most aspects of causation, diagnosis, treatment, or any other matters pertaining to SBS,” and that “the commonly held opinion that the finding of subdural hemorrhage and retinal hemorrhage in an infant was strong evidence of SBS was unsustainable.” “Head acceleration and velocity levels commonly reported for SBS generate forces that are far too great for the infant neck to withstand without injury. An SBS diagnosis in an infant without cervical spine or brain stem injury is questionable and other causes of the intracerebral injury must be considered.” Cavazos, 565 U.S. at 13 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (quoting Donohoe, Evidence–Based Medicine and Shaken Baby Syndrome, Part I: Literature Review, 1966–1998, 24 Am. J. Forensic Med. & Pathology 239, 241 (2003), and Bandak, Shaken Baby Syndrome: A Biomechanics Analysis of Injury Mechanisms, 151