Defense says nanny not the cause of toddler’s death
Salcedo didn’t shake violently, attorney says
The defense for Veronica Martinez Salcedo spent about an hour Thursday morning explaining to the jury why they believe the former nanny is innocent. The jury is now deliberating Salcedo’s fate for a second time after her first trial ended in October with the jury deadlocked 10 to 2 in favor of guilt. Salcedo is charged with assault causing the death of a child in the death of 15-month-old Hannah Rose Juceam. Hannah was taken off life support and died on May 13, 2006. The prosecution contends that Hannah died of injuries resulting from shaken baby syndrome when Salcedo shook Hannah on May 12, 2006 in an attempt to stop her crying. On that day, Salcedo was babysitting the toddler. Defense attorney Mary Beth Acton described the events that occurred that afternoon. She said Salcedo set Hannah on the floor so she could prepare a bottle. She then heard a thud, and saw Hannah lying on the floor. When Salcedo went to pick up Hannah, the toddler arched back and fell again on the floor, Acton said. Then, according to Acton, Salcedo lifted Hannah again, who was crying. She shook the child gently in a manner in which she had done before when she was playing with the girl, Acton said. Salcedo was attempting to comfort her, she added. Then Hannah’s eyes went blank and Salcedo immediately called Hannah’s mother, Lorena. Acton demonstrated Salcedo’s shaking motion with a toddler-sized doll that was in the courtroom. She then made the same shaking motion with a smaller doll that was used during Salcedo’s interrogation. The second doll was looser and shook more noticeably. Acton used the demonstration to show how Salcedo’s motions were not strong, violent or prolonged enough to cause injuries related to shaken baby syndrome, she said. “It’s not whether or not she shook her. It’s whether or not she shook Hannah violently and sustained,” Acton said. “The people would like you to believe in 15 minutes Mrs. Salcedo, who has never ever become enraged, became enraged.” The defense instead said the cause of Hannah’s death was related to a virus called venous thrombosis. The virus is brought on by a number of symptoms including dehydration and diabetes. Acton said that ketone was found in Hannah’s urine, which doesn’t develop immediately and is a sign of dehydration or diabetes. She included Hannah’s medical history. Hannah has a twin brother with Down syndrome. The toddler also has a history of viruses, Acton said. The defense said an MRI should’ve been administered to determine whether it was blood or clots showing up on a CT scan of Hannah’s brain. “How can so many doctors who saw Hannah not do an MRI?” Acton asked. She also argued that Hannah died because she couldn’t breathe. Acton said the baby was paralyzed and sedated by the amount of drugs in her system at the time she was taken off life support. Acton argued that ultimately, because Hannah was not treated for the illness venous thrombosis, she was misdiagnosed when she was taken off life support. She said Hannah died from venous thrombosis and a swelling of the brain. She implored to the jury that if they too believe that is the possible cause of death, then they should find Salcedo not guilty of Hannah’s death. Acton also encouraged the jury to carefully read and interpret the transcripts from when police originally questioned Salcedo. She said the interpretation and communication was “very bad.” Salcedo’s initial story mentioned a barstool falling on top of Hannah. Salcedo later said that did not happen. Acton said Salcedo struggled to have her story heard. “We concede she lied about the chair,” Acton told the jury. “After that it’s the truth. She tried to tell it over and over.” Following the defense’s arguments, the prosecution gave their rebuttal. Prosecutor Jeff Wood discussed the “diversions of the defense.” He said they included attacking the parents, contesting the dolls used, bringing up a history of viruses and Hannah’s brain flow. “Shaken baby is not just about Hannah, it’s about this woman and how she reacted, not how Hannah reacted,” Wood said as he walked over and pointed to Salcedo. He recapped how 10 physicians, including the ones who treated Hannah, all pointed to Shaken Baby Syndrome as the cause of death. He added that the treating physicians ruled out venous thrombosis. “What that woman did in a matter of seconds,” Wood said pointing to Salcedo again, “she took away someone’s sister and someone’s daughter.” Following the close of arguments, the jury was instructed to begin deliberations. They can find her guilty of the greater charge of assault causing the death of a child or a lesser charge of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. Salcedo cannot be found guilty of both charges. Representatives from the defense and prosecution declined to comment further until after the trial. The Juceam and Salcedo families also declined to comment. Salcedo faces a possible 25-years-to-life sentence. She remains in custody at Placer County Jail. The Journal's Jenifer Gee can be reached at jeniferg@goldcountrymedia.com or post a comment.
|
Change Location:
|
Jennifer Gee: Thanks for a good summary of the defense arguments and for clarifying the actual charges that are being submitted to the jury. I understand that the jail booking records reflect that she was originally charged with murder, but I assume that at some point the prosecution realized it could not show the requisite degree of malice and dropped that charge. It would be interesting to know the time of day that the jury began to deliberate. Also, a general description of the makeup of the jury (without giving names or other identifying information) would be nice. But overall a good piece of reporting.
Jenifer Gee:I am puzzled by your headlines:DEFENSE: NANNY NOT CAUSE OF DEATH, and Salcedo Attorney says she didn’t shake baby.” Then in the story the attorney Acton said that “it is not whether or not she shook Hannah violently…” I think the attorney admitted and Salcedo definitely admitted shaking the baby.
This needs clarification. Salcedo even demonstrated how she shook her by using the doll. Perhaps you didn’t write this headlines but it certainly leaves a question.
Why is this ever a charge of murder? Seems to me that the prosecution was getting overly greedy.
How do you have a missed diagnosis of venous thrombosis and yet this nanny is charged with murder? Sounds to me like the rolling of the eyes is significant to seizure activity in the first place. How did this morph into a nanny trying to kill this poor baby? This is a grave miscarriage of any sense of justice.
Are we going to be content to leave this poor woman accused of doing despicable things so that a medical community can cover up an "oops" again? Sounds to me that they didn't know what killed this baby and she was a convenient scapegoat by saying that she shook the baby gently to revive the child. There is a huge difference between the prosecution's accusations and what this woman demonstrated as having done.
Why do we always seem to have to make things worse than they are? And I don't feel sorry for her parents or the doctors. If they're content to blame an innocent woman then they can feel that sting too. All's seemingly fair in this jungle of lies.
almirati: I share your concerns that the prosecution of Salcedo seems more like a vendetta than a search for justice. I wonder what internal politics in the DA's office drove the decision to go for a retrial after the first hung jury. I'd love to know what kind of deal , if any the DA put on the table. And if the Journal's account of the prosecution's closing argument is accurate, why are we trying to put this woman in prison for 25 years to life, when even the prosecution concedes that Salcedo had not intent to harm the child? Drunk drivers who kill get better treatment than this.
I'm also concerned about the comments of Firechic to yesterday's story. Firechic, who I strongly suspect to be a certain local attorney, sat through parts of the first trial and thought there was plenty of "reasonable doubt" to justify a hung jury, if not outright acquittal.
I'm a little confused by the statement, "The defense instead said the cause of Hannah’s death was related to a virus called venous thrombosis. The virus is brought on by a number of symptoms including dehydration and diabetes." First of all, a venous thrombosis is NOT a virus, but rather can be sometimes caused by a virus such as cytomegalovirus (CMV) or HIV. And to further clarify, a virus is not 'brought on" by dehydration, but rather dehydration may be a sign of the virus. As a physician reading this article, I was concerned by the confusing medical terminology....Dr. P
As a registered nurse in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit I too was concerned by the confusing medical terminology. I was also concerned by the statement that "She also argued that Hannah died because she couldn’t breathe. Acton said the baby was paralyzed and sedated by the amount of drugs in her system at the time she was taken off life support." I would be very surprised to hear that an ICU physician would remove a baby from life support if all the sedation and paralytics were not out of her system. There is a certain protocol that is followed when a child is declared brain dead and taken off life support.
almirati, I feel that your blaming of the medical community of a missed diagnosis without knowing the facts of the case is premature. Clearly there is some misinformation with some of the confusing medical terminology as mentioned above. The loss of a child regardless of how they died is an experience I would not wish on my worst enemy. Having to tell a parent that they will not be taking their child home with them has been one of the hardest to do in my career. I do feel sorry for her parents and every other parent that has lost a child.
I am not saying that Ms. Salcedo is guilty or innocent, but the bottom line is you don't shake your baby or any one else's for that matter.
Not all of the evidence was issued to the juriors or to the courts.
The child was never declared brain dead. A brainflow study was ordered when the parents wanted to donate her organs. The study came back saying that there was significant profusion (sp) to her brain. The parents decided, on one doctor's prognosis to pull the plug on her. She was still on paralytics and was given a shot of Ativan supposedly for her comfort. Then they pulled the plug.
Time between the girl entering the hospital and the signing of the DNR? 24 hrs. Total time until they pulled the plug? 52 hrs.
The swelling in that child's brain was decreasing. She grasped her father's finger, not an involuntary action. Her brain stem was undamaged as was her neck.