Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sufficiency Of Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Defense says evidence was insufficient to tie audio/video to fatal injury; prosecutors say record supports conviction
Summary
Defense argued the Commonwealth failed to link an audio/video clip of 'thumps' and sparse external injuries to the infant’s fatal internal injuries, while the prosecutor said treating doctors and experts together provided a sufficient record for the jury to find involuntary manslaughter.
At oral argument in Commonwealth v. Shu Feng Hsu, defense counsel Christopher DeMayo urged the court to reverse a conviction for involuntary manslaughter on sufficiency grounds, arguing the Commonwealth’s theory relied on speculative inferences from an audio/video clip and limited external signs on the victim.
DeMayo described the prosecution’s case as circumstantial and highlighted four factors he said produced a wrongful conviction: the emotional nature of the case, the use of expert witnesses, the defendant’s limited English proficiency, and the last‑caregiver inference that Ms. Hsu was the last person with the child. He told the justices that medical evidence showed neomembranes that can re‑bleed and that some doctors, including the surgeon, could not rule out a prior bleed—factors that make timing uncertain.
On the contested "thumps" clip (referred to as clip 25), DeMayo said the Commonwealth made no effort to connect the sounds to the medical evidence: "None of the doctors were questioned about the thumps," he said, and there was no acoustic expert offered to tie the audio to blunt impact. He also noted the child presented largely atraumatic aside from a small bruise.
Justices probed whether a lay jury could reasonably draw the required inference from the video and testimony. The bench referenced precedent cautioning against low‑quality audiovisual inference and asked whether the inferences in the record met the standard of viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
Assistant District Attorney Meagan Monahan told the court that the Commonwealth did not assert a wall‑bashing theory and that the prosecution relied on impact from hard surfaces such as a bed frame, supported by photographs introduced at trial. She pointed to treating‑physician testimony and the autopsy findings, and said Dr. Shaw credibly distinguished surgical changes versus blunt‑force injuries and identified multiple bruises consistent with blunt trauma.
The bench did not rule at argument. The issue of whether the jury permissibly inferred causation from the combination of video, limited external injury, and expert testimony remains for the court to decide.
