Key Takeaways:
- A judge has ordered a new trial for Brooke Shoemaker, an Alabama woman who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for chemical endangerment of a child resulting in death after a stillbirth.
- Shoemaker’s attorneys argued that the stillbirth was caused by an infection, not drug use, and submitted new evidence to support this claim.
- The case is one of several dozen in which women have been prosecuted following pregnancy loss, and highlights the need for careful consideration of scientific evidence in such cases.
- Alabama leads the nation in pregnancy-related prosecutions, with most cases related to drug use.
- The state’s chemical endangerment law has been used to prosecute pregnant women, despite initial intentions to address harm to children from meth labs.
Introduction to the Case
The case of Brooke Shoemaker, an Alabama woman who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for chemical endangerment of a child resulting in death, has taken a significant turn. A judge has ordered a new trial, citing new information that could potentially prove Shoemaker’s innocence. The decision comes after Shoemaker’s attorneys submitted new evidence, including an expert’s opinion that a genetic abnormality and severe infection caused the stillbirth, rather than drug use. This case is not an isolated incident, but rather one of several dozen in which women have been prosecuted following pregnancy loss, and highlights the need for careful consideration of scientific evidence in such cases.
The Original Conviction
In 2017, Shoemaker had a stillbirth at approximately 24 to 26 weeks into her pregnancy. She admitted to medical staff that she had used methamphetamine during her pregnancy, and the state medical examiner found the drug present in the fetus’ bloodstream. However, the cause of death was listed as undetermined. Despite this, Shoemaker was convicted of chemical endangerment of a child resulting in death and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Her attorneys argued that there was no proof that the drug use caused the pregnancy loss, and that the conviction was based on flawed assumptions rather than scientific evidence.
The Appeal and New Evidence
Shoemaker’s attorneys submitted an appeal, which included an expert’s opinion based on a review of pathology slides. The expert concluded that a genetic abnormality and severe infection caused the demise of the pregnancy, rather than drug use. This new evidence was sufficient to convince the judge to order a new trial, as it potentially lends towards Shoemaker’s innocence. The judge’s decision is a significant victory for Shoemaker and her attorneys, who have argued that the original conviction was based on incomplete and misleading information.
Reaction to the Decision
The decision to order a new trial has been welcomed by advocates for women’s rights and reproductive justice. Karen Thompson, the legal director of Pregnancy Justice, an organization that is helping with Shoemaker’s appeal, praised the judge’s decision, saying that it recognizes the validity of science. Thompson noted that one of the problems in cases like Shoemaker’s is that there is often no desire or need to prove harm, and that prosecutors may rely on flawed assumptions rather than scientific evidence. Shoemaker herself has expressed hope that the new trial will result in her freedom, saying that she loved and wanted her baby and never deserved to be prosecuted.
The Broader Context
The case of Brooke Shoemaker is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a larger pattern of pregnancy-related prosecutions in Alabama. The state leads the nation in such cases, with most related to drug use. Alabama’s chemical endangerment law was initially approved by lawmakers as a way to address harm to children from meth labs, but has also been used to prosecute pregnant women. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in 2013, writing that the word "child" in the law includes "unborn child." This has led to a number of cases in which women have been prosecuted for pregnancy-related conduct, often with little scientific evidence to support the charges.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The case of Brooke Shoemaker is a significant one, highlighting the need for careful consideration of scientific evidence in pregnancy-related prosecutions. The decision to order a new trial is a victory for Shoemaker and her attorneys, and may have implications for other women who have been prosecuted in similar cases. As the case moves forward, it will be important to continue to monitor the use of scientific evidence and the application of Alabama’s chemical endangerment law. Prosecutors are appealing the decision to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that Shoemaker did not present new evidence, but rather "merely located a new expert willing to reinterpret evidence that was available before trial." The outcome of this appeal will be closely watched, and may have significant implications for the future of pregnancy-related prosecutions in Alabama.