In light of the evidence presented at trial, the Ninth Circuit plainly erred in concluding that the jury’s verdict was irrational.” —Per Curiam 

Facts: Tomeka put her seven-week-old son Etzel to sleep on a sofa before going to sleep herself in another room. Shirley Smith, Tomeka’s mother, slept on the floor next to Etzel. Several hours later Smith ran into Tomeka’s room, holding Etzel, who was limp. By the time emergency personnel arrived, Etzel was not breathing and had no heartbeat, and was pronounced dead. Smith reported that Etzel had fallen off the sofa. After an autopsy, the coroner concluded that the cause of death was shaken baby syndrome (SBS). In an interview with the police several days later Smith admitted that she had shaken Etzel. Smith was arrested and charged with the crime of assault on a child resulting in death. At trial in a California court, the jury heard seven days of expert medical testimony on the cause of Etzel’s death. The prosecution offered the testimony of the medical examiner for the coroner who supervised Etzel’s autopsy, and two other medical experts, all of whom testified that Etzel’s death was the result of SBS. The defense offered two medical experts, one who testified that Etzel died from a prior brain trauma but not from SBS, and the other who testified that Etzel did not die from SBS. The jury found Smith guilty and the court sentenced her to 15 years to life in prison. The California ourt of appeals upheld the verdict, stating, “The credited evidence was substantial and sufficient to support the jury’s conclusions that Etzel died from shaken baby syndrome.” The California supreme court denied review. Smith filed a writ to the U.S. district court alleging that the evidence was insufficient to prove Etzel died from SBS, but the U.S. district court denied the petition. Smith appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which determined that there was no evidence to permit an expert conclusion one way or the other on the question of death by SBS. The state of California appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Issue Can an appellate court substitute its judgment of facts introduced at trial for that of the jury? 

Language of the U.S. Supreme Court: In light of the evidence presented at trial, the Ninth Circuit plainly erred in concluding that the jury’s verdict was irrational. Doubts about whether Smith is in fact guilty are understandable. But it is not the job of this Court and was not that of the Ninth Circuit, to decide whether the State’s theory was correct. The jury decided that question, and its decision is supported by the record. 

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Ethics Questions: Do you think jurors are competent to understand expert medical testimony? Did the Ninth Circuit have the right to substitute its judgment for that of the jury?