You might not have time for extra reading, but this article is worth it. You should also read the two court documents that the article links to.
This is the kind of thing that makes law, and subsequently this kind of journalism, intriguing to me.
In a nutshell: this woman who is an illegal Mexican immigrant, was babysitting (in 2003) for her own kid and a kid she watched regularly. The little boy (not hers) was named Bryan Gutierrez, and was almost 2 years old. She was in a separate room doing something while the kids were playing. She went in to check on them and found BG (as the court docs call him) choking, all blue. Anyway, long story short, eventually paramedics found he had choked on a wad of paper towels. Eventually he died from the brain damage. The case went to court, and she was convicted of murder (obviously her case was that he had wadded/swallowed the paper towels on his own).
The whole problem with the case, and why they're petitioning the US Supreme Court, is that she/her lawyers do not think she was given a fair trial. The state (prosecutors) had all these experts-- doctors, forensic investigators, choking specialist-- but the woman, since she was poor, did not have access to (read: funds for) the right kind of people. The "expert" she found, or was given (I don't know if he was appointed or what), was this doctor who was not a child specialist, nor a choking specialist; moreover, he didn't have ANY clinical experience. In addition, he was supposed to be an unbiased third-party sort of person, and during a break, he told the two prosecutors to go fuck themselves. Oops.
So we come to the question: does Rosa Jimenez have a right to an equal representation of experts? Seems like she should, regardless of her access to funding.
I certainly do not know one way or the other--I'm not saying she's guilty and I'm not saying she's innocent. But doesn't this seemingly routine case--and I'm sure many others like it--seem to have some flaws? I'm fascinated and bothered.
