Speaker 1: Stephanie Spurgeon was a married mother of two and a
Speaker 1: licensed childcare provider who had been running a daycare facility
Speaker 1: from her home in Florida for fifteen years. On August
Speaker 1: twenty one, two thousand and eight, one year old Maria
Speaker 1: Harris spent her first day at Stephanie's daycare. Maria's grandmother
Speaker 1: had picked up a sleeping Maria that day, but soon
Speaker 1: after had noticed that Maria was unresponsive and in distress.
Speaker 1: Ignoring other potential root causes and relying on the junk
Speaker 1: science of shaken baby syndrome, doctors opined that brain bleed
Speaker 1: and swelling were signs of child abuse, placing blame on
Speaker 1: the brand new childcare provider, Stephanie Spurgeon, and when Maria
Speaker 1: died seven days later, the charges were upgraded to murder,
Speaker 1: but with the lack of external injuries, the state changed
Speaker 1: its shaken baby theory, concocting a new narrative in which
Speaker 1: Maria had been repeatedly struck against the soft surface. The
Speaker 1: defense failed to pivot to this new theory, instead presenting
Speaker 1: a shape can baby syndrome defense, and with the state's
Speaker 1: uncontested yet totally dubious soft impact theory. The jury found
Speaker 1: Stephanie guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter and sentenced
Speaker 1: her to fifteen years in prison. With the help of
Speaker 1: multiple innocence projects and a current candidate for state's attorney,
Speaker 1: Stephanie was able to present the proper expert testimony. This
Speaker 1: proved the state's ludicrous soft impact theory, win a new trial,
Speaker 1: and ultimately be set free after nine long years. This
Speaker 1: is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. Today's episode
Speaker 1: is well, I'm gonna be honest with you, it's terrifying
Speaker 1: because this is a story that is both unique and
Speaker 1: also somehow not uncommon, and it involves an innocent woman
Speaker 1: working at a daycare center who got caught up in
Speaker 1: the criminal legal system for no reason of her own making.
Speaker 1: I'm going to introduce our incredible guests today, because we
Speaker 1: have three, including the woman who lived through this nightmare herself,
Speaker 1: Stephanie Spurgeon. First, I'm going to introduce are very distinguished group.
Speaker 1: Seth Miller is here. He's the executive director of the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project of Florida. Does incredible work day in and
Speaker 1: day out, pushing huge boulders uphills of justice. So Seth,
Speaker 1: thanks for being here. Thanks Jason, thrilled to be here
Speaker 1: and with him and with us. Is Alison Miller no relation.
Speaker 1: She is an attorney with Ripley wisen Hunt and is
Speaker 1: also currently running for the State's Attorney Office of Florida.
Speaker 1: And I hope people will support her because we need
Speaker 1: people like you in positions like that. But for the
Speaker 1: time being, we're happy to have you right where you
Speaker 1: are and right here on the mike. So, Alison Mill
Speaker 1: are welcome to Ronval Conviction. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: having me. And Stephanie, what can I say, I feel
Speaker 1: like the whole human race owes you a debt of
Speaker 1: gratitude for sharing your story and for just being the strong,
Speaker 1: courageous woman that you are, and I appreciate you being here.
Speaker 1: So Stephanie to you. Also welcome to Ronfo Conviction. Thank you, Jason.
Speaker 1: It's my pleasure. And so Stephanie. This is a story
Speaker 1: that we've heard time and time again where somebody like
Speaker 1: yourself is doing you know, let's call it what it is,
Speaker 1: essential work. Where would we be as a society without
Speaker 1: daycare center? The working world would grind to a halt.
Speaker 1: And yet people like you too often end up in
Speaker 1: situations like the one we're talking about today. I mean,
Speaker 1: it really makes my heart hurt. But let's please take
Speaker 1: us back before this incident happened in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us what your life was like back then.
Speaker 1: I was married for nineteen years, and I had two
Speaker 1: beautiful children. We had a beautiful life. We were a
Speaker 1: well knit family. We did a lot of family vacations.
Speaker 1: I was a license in home daycare provider for fifteen years.
Speaker 1: The parents that would come into my home, they became
Speaker 1: part of my family, their kids became part of my family.
Speaker 1: We would celebrate holidays together, in different things. It was
Speaker 1: very fulfilling. I was able to work with children. I
Speaker 1: was able to be at home with my own children.
Speaker 1: I decided at one point to go into special needs children.
Speaker 1: So I took lots of children that came in who
Speaker 1: had speech issues or different disabilities, and I grew a
Speaker 1: real heart for these kids because not a lot of
Speaker 1: places would accept any special needs children. And then I
Speaker 1: decided to branch off a little bit further and start
Speaker 1: taking teenage parent children. So Esther Harris was actually the
Speaker 1: very first team mom that I took. She was seventeen
Speaker 1: years old when I was introduced to her, Maria. And
Speaker 1: so not only are you taking care of other people's kids,
Speaker 1: you're doing it in your own home, opening your doors
Speaker 1: and your heart and taking care of kids who have
Speaker 1: issues that other people well might not want to open
Speaker 1: their home to or or their hearts, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: so this case, I'd like to say it happened a
Speaker 1: long time ago, but it really didn't write. I mean,
Speaker 1: it would feel a little bit better if it was
Speaker 1: back before we had science evolved to a place that
Speaker 1: it was at in two thousand eight, which is when
Speaker 1: this tragedy occurred, of course. And I said tragedy, not crime.
Speaker 1: That's deliberate, because that's what it was. And so, Seth,
Speaker 1: do you want to set the stage for us of
Speaker 1: what happened on that awful day and how this became
Speaker 1: a criminal matter. When I think about these cases when
Speaker 1: a child dies, a lot of times the folks involved
Speaker 1: in trying to figure out how that happened kind of
Speaker 1: go nutty. They aren't able to take sober views of
Speaker 1: what might have happened to that child. And that's what
Speaker 1: happened here in this case. Stephie Spurgeon was running in
Speaker 1: a home daycare to home. It was better business. Bureau
Speaker 1: rated had generations worth of children who come through the
Speaker 1: daycare who really positive experiences, their families have positive experiences.
Speaker 1: And the child, Maria Harris, was our first day at
Speaker 1: the daycare, and yet on this day, this poor child
Speaker 1: was suffering from what was clearly a distress, a medical situation.
Speaker 1: When Maria's grandmother, Patricia came and picked her up that day,
Speaker 1: Maria had been sleeping. So I reached into the pack
Speaker 1: and play and I picked her up, and she kind
Speaker 1: of stirred in my arms, and I passed her to Patricia,
Speaker 1: and she stirred in Patricia's arms, and then Patricia took
Speaker 1: her and placed her in the car and drove her home.
Speaker 1: Thirty minutes later is when we got the phone call. Maria,
Speaker 1: I guess was deteriorating as she was sleeping, and I
Speaker 1: was unaware that there was any issue because I simply
Speaker 1: thought she was asleep. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the child was growing up. The child was crying and
Speaker 1: was clearly kind of lifeless in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: and called nine one one. It took a child to
Speaker 1: the hospital. And when we're on the way to the hospital.
Speaker 1: They tested the child's blood sugar and the child had
Speaker 1: high four hundreds of blood sugar. And I don't know
Speaker 1: if any of y'all have diabetes or test your blood
Speaker 1: sugar regularly, but that is four to five times the
Speaker 1: normal level. So this child is in major distress. What
Speaker 1: they do when they get this child to the hospital
Speaker 1: is they realize after doing a number of tests on
Speaker 1: the child that the child suffering from a brain lead
Speaker 1: a subdural hematoma, and the child has brain swelling and
Speaker 1: that has led to the child having retinal hemorrhages. And
Speaker 1: instead of treating the child for what looked like a
Speaker 1: diabetic situation, a diabetic distress because the child had the
Speaker 1: subdural hematona, because the child had the brain swelling and
Speaker 1: the retinal hemorrhages, the doctors immediately assumed that this was
Speaker 1: an abusive situation because they thought that this was the
Speaker 1: three ingredients, the triad as they call it, caused by
Speaker 1: taking baby syndrome or what is more commonly known now
Speaker 1: is abusive head trauma. So that had a chance to
Speaker 1: try to treat this child to maybe ameliorate or even
Speaker 1: prevent and a bigger problem or death, to treat this metabolic,
Speaker 1: this diabetic situation, but instead they assumed it was abuse.
Speaker 1: And we're often running taking a medical situation and elevating
Speaker 1: it to the crime, and unfortunately child died seven days later.
Speaker 1: The idea that this might have been prevented if they
Speaker 1: just simply focused on the problem at hand rather than
Speaker 1: turning this into wild accusations of child abuse makes my
Speaker 1: blood boil. I mean, and I think it's worth mentioning.
Speaker 1: As we've covered extensively on our show Junk Science and
Speaker 1: other episodes of Wrongful Conviction as well, just a general
Speaker 1: overview of the theory of shaking baby syndrome or SPS. Now.
Speaker 1: It was initially introduced as a hypothesis by British pediatric
Speaker 1: neurosurgeon Dr Norman guth Kelch, who was trying to explain
Speaker 1: a cause for an explicable child deaths in which a
Speaker 1: child or baby, toddler whatever had presented subdual hematoma otherwise
Speaker 1: known as bleeding in the brain retinal hemorrhage, so you
Speaker 1: know bleeding in the eye is in brain swelling or
Speaker 1: cerebral a demon Now. Dr cuth Kelch hypothesized that perhaps
Speaker 1: a typical method of scolding a child in Great Britain
Speaker 1: at the time, giving the child a good shake. Maybe
Speaker 1: that was the cause for unintended or unexplained child deaths
Speaker 1: in which this triad of medical findings occurred. He never
Speaker 1: was able to prove this, He just hypothesized it and
Speaker 1: caution parents against the practice. Understandably, however, since that hypothesis,
Speaker 1: the criminal legal system just sort of random up with
Speaker 1: this idea, right leaping to the conclusion that any child
Speaker 1: presenting those symptoms, especially if there was any other bruisings,
Speaker 1: had been fatally abused like sort of one size fits all,
Speaker 1: which is ridiculous, and that the person less responsible for
Speaker 1: the child therefore must have been the culprit. And I
Speaker 1: think we as people understanding the inner workings of the
Speaker 1: human mind, when bad things happen, we want to be
Speaker 1: able to say there's someone or something responsible for that
Speaker 1: bad thing happening. And so where there was a legitimate
Speaker 1: science maybe at the inception, this idea has been horribly
Speaker 1: bastardized to get convictions involving Usually the depth of infants
Speaker 1: are toddlers, and Stephanie's case is a perfect example of that.
Speaker 1: Where there is legitimate scientific evidence that this child was
Speaker 1: in medical distress that went ignored by medical professionals because
Speaker 1: it was easier to say, oh, this child must have
Speaker 1: been harmed. Yeah, And it's worth noting that in recent years,
Speaker 1: as doctors and larger and larger numbers have been challenging
Speaker 1: the notion of shaking baby syndrome, they've identified get this,
Speaker 1: over eighty different pre existing conditions that can cause what
Speaker 1: they call the triad of findings that were historically just
Speaker 1: attributed to shaking baby syndrome almost automatically. Right. So the
Speaker 1: science is there, but I mean, I wish I could
Speaker 1: say when the criminal legal system is going to catch up.
Speaker 1: It's entirely possible that it never will because science, let's face,
Speaker 1: it looks forward, while the legal system only looks backward
Speaker 1: at precedent, sort of the opposite. And so Stephanie, if
Speaker 1: you could take us back to when you were arrested,
Speaker 1: what all happened before the trial. My first arrest was
Speaker 1: August August twenty two, maybe two thousand and eight. I
Speaker 1: was arrested on aggravated child abuse. I went to Nells
Speaker 1: County Jail. I was housed in a solitaire cell because,
Speaker 1: of course, my face was on the news. And I
Speaker 1: was able to bond out the next day. I think
Speaker 1: it's important to say my bond was fifty thou dollars,
Speaker 1: and my parents got an attorney for me, which was
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars, So right away we're in the hole.
Speaker 1: I came home and was unable to have a daycare
Speaker 1: of course, so I had no income, so that became
Speaker 1: an issue immediately. Maria passed away seven days later. I
Speaker 1: was re arrested six weeks later, on November eighth, two
Speaker 1: thousand eight, on capital felony murder. I just taken my
Speaker 1: son to his bus stop in the morning, and when
Speaker 1: I came back home, I put up in the driveway,
Speaker 1: like three squad cars surrounded me, and everybody come racing out,
Speaker 1: screamed and yelling, and put me in cuffs and put
Speaker 1: me in the back of the cruiser and took me
Speaker 1: back to County Jail. When they brought me in from
Speaker 1: booking that day, they brought me straight to a solitaire
Speaker 1: cell in the lobby area, and I could look out
Speaker 1: and see my face on the news. And as I'm
Speaker 1: looking at my face on the news, I'm looking at
Speaker 1: the other inmates that are in there getting processed in
Speaker 1: and they're all looking back at me and that solitaire cell.
Speaker 1: So it was a very scary situation. There was a
Speaker 1: grand jury hearing, and the attorney that I had that
Speaker 1: was he wouldn't try a capital case, so we had
Speaker 1: to hire another firm and they cost us a hundred thousand.
Speaker 1: I ended up getting indicted and then we moved for
Speaker 1: a bond hearing. My bond hearing was successful, except it
Speaker 1: was three hundred and fifty thousand dollars with an angle
Speaker 1: monitor and no contact with any child in the age
Speaker 1: of twelve. I thought there was no way that my
Speaker 1: family was ever going to be able to come up
Speaker 1: with those kind of funds because we had already spent
Speaker 1: so much. They did come up with it. They fundraised,
Speaker 1: they drained all of their savings, accounts, everything, and one night,
Speaker 1: on January two thousand and nine, after I think eighty
Speaker 1: nine days in a solitaire cell, I was released at
Speaker 1: two am, so I was able to come home and
Speaker 1: wake both of my kids up. My daughter and I
Speaker 1: ended up sitting on the front porch and a rocking
Speaker 1: chair and watch the sunrise together. It was very hard
Speaker 1: to sleep because I kept thinking I was going to
Speaker 1: wake up and be back in there. The nightmare I
Speaker 1: would be there again. This episode is underwritten by a
Speaker 1: i G, a leading global insurance company, and by Accenture,
Speaker 1: a global professional services company with leading capabilities in digital,
Speaker 1: cloud and security. Working to reform the criminal justice system
Speaker 1: is a key pillar of the ai G pro Bono program,
Speaker 1: which provides free legal services and other support to many
Speaker 1: nonprofit organizations and individuals most in need as part of
Speaker 1: Accenture's commitment to racial and civil justice. Accenture's Legal Access
Speaker 1: Program provides pro bono legal services in partnership with more
Speaker 1: than forty organizations, bringing meaningful change to people and communities worldwide.
Speaker 1: There were signals even before the trial that the state
Speaker 1: was going to move away from a shaking baby syndrome diagnosis.
Speaker 1: The real issue in this case is that we had
Speaker 1: these presentations in the brain and the skull, and the
Speaker 1: doctors were used to saying so this could only be abused,
Speaker 1: it's shaking baby syndrome. The problem is these things are
Speaker 1: normally associated with signs of abuse external injuries, and this
Speaker 1: child did not have a scratch or bruise or not
Speaker 1: even a single mark on her, and so the doctors
Speaker 1: are trying to figure out, well, how can we make
Speaker 1: this abuse and explain away the fact that there's no
Speaker 1: visual injuries on this child? And this is how what
Speaker 1: they call the child abuse pediatrician I'm using air quotes.
Speaker 1: She came up with the theory that, well, the reason
Speaker 1: there's no injuries that are apparent on the outside is
Speaker 1: because this child was slam repeatedly on a soft surface
Speaker 1: like a crib mattress. So this case is nutty, right,
Speaker 1: because you don't see it very often that the state
Speaker 1: changes their theory sort of midstream, right, So then they
Speaker 1: came up with this soft impact theory. But the crazy
Speaker 1: thing is it seemed like her attorneys were defending a
Speaker 1: different theory than the one that the state was trying
Speaker 1: to convict her on. Am I mistaken about that? That's
Speaker 1: exactly right. The defensetourney was very focused on shaking BNY syndrome.
Speaker 1: And when I deposed this attorney in post conviction, I
Speaker 1: asked them about cases that he had done previously, and
Speaker 1: what I found out was that he had done a
Speaker 1: series of shaking baby syndrome cases where he got favorable
Speaker 1: results for his clients. So he had his pat experts
Speaker 1: and a formula for how he would approach these cases.
Speaker 1: But he simply failed to learn his own case well
Speaker 1: enough to know that he could not simply employ the
Speaker 1: same formula that he employed in other cases where shaken
Speaker 1: baby syndrome was a theory. Because not all cases are
Speaker 1: the same, they're not creating equal In this case, the
Speaker 1: state had already abandoned the shaken baby syndrome theory for
Speaker 1: this soft impact theory. And so we're pressing along. In
Speaker 1: a case they get to buy a mechanical expert. They
Speaker 1: do the thing that a lot of people don't do.
Speaker 1: They get the right expert. They prepared that expert, but
Speaker 1: they prepared them for the wrong theory. And there was
Speaker 1: this striking moment in the trial where after the defense
Speaker 1: attorney sits down, he thinks he's done a great job
Speaker 1: with the biomechanical expert. And the first question the state
Speaker 1: asked the expert when they get up is who told
Speaker 1: you that this was a shaking baby syndrome case. It
Speaker 1: was a devastating moment in the trial. And of course
Speaker 1: he could have put his expert back up, got them
Speaker 1: to prepare all the calculations, and he failed to do
Speaker 1: that because he just didn't even understand his own case.
Speaker 1: The State of Florida, in their prosecution of Stephanie, relied
Speaker 1: on one particular pediatrician that they frequently rely on. It's
Speaker 1: so hard because these doctors and experts come in to
Speaker 1: court couched with credibility and reliability, and especially in areas
Speaker 1: like Vanilla's and Pasco County where we've used the same
Speaker 1: experts forever, it's hard helping whoever the fact finder is,
Speaker 1: jurors or judges to understand this is a misapplication of science.
Speaker 1: And so you get doctors that come in and they
Speaker 1: use words that we as average folks don't understand, and
Speaker 1: it sounds like, well, it must be true. And then
Speaker 1: at the end it's with the conclusion that this child
Speaker 1: died as a result of intentionally inflicted abusive trauma. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so the deck is truly stacked against even someone like Stephanie. Right,
Speaker 1: she gets swept under this title wave of nonsense that
Speaker 1: comes from preconceived biases and notions and things. Right, because
Speaker 1: someone sees her in the defendive chair, they automatically assumed
Speaker 1: somebody who was there must have done something to be there. Right,
Speaker 1: there's that you have to overcome. Then, as you said,
Speaker 1: there's all the medical stuff. A guy gets up there
Speaker 1: and reads his credentials sounds very impressive, and then spouting
Speaker 1: these theories that most jurors are not equipped to understand
Speaker 1: or unpack, so they think they're doing the right thing.
Speaker 1: And I have empathy for them too for making these mistakes.
Speaker 1: And Stephanie, you've lived through this, so I want to
Speaker 1: get back to you. What was this like from your
Speaker 1: perspective as a mom nineteen years married, you know, upstanding
Speaker 1: citizen to say the least, Well, Jason, I was absolutely devastating,
Speaker 1: to say the least. Kept waiting for the truth to prevail.
Speaker 1: I knew that I didn't hurt Maria, so I knew
Speaker 1: that something would eventually come to surface that would show
Speaker 1: what had happened. It was terrifying, terrifying for me, It
Speaker 1: was terrifying for my children. It was terrifying from my
Speaker 1: then husband. It was awful, and in the end, it
Speaker 1: destroyed our whole family. I got a divorce, went to prison,
Speaker 1: and my kids grew up without their mom. How old
Speaker 1: were the kids when this happened. My son was twelve
Speaker 1: and my daughter was seventeen. So Stephanie, when the jury
Speaker 1: went out. Can you tell us what you were thinking
Speaker 1: at that time? Did you think that finally this wrong
Speaker 1: would be righted and this nightmare would come to an end.
Speaker 1: I just kept thinking that eventually they would realize that
Speaker 1: there's no way that I did this, That nobody hurt Maria.
Speaker 1: There had to have been something else. The jury deliberated
Speaker 1: for twenty one and a half hours before they came
Speaker 1: back with an acquittal of capital failony murder but a
Speaker 1: guilty charge and manslaughter. I heard a horrible noise from
Speaker 1: behind me, and it was my son crying out. It
Speaker 1: was surreal. It just felt like I was in a fog.
Speaker 1: I remember mouthing I love you to my family before
Speaker 1: they helped being out of court room and put me
Speaker 1: back in that solitaire. So I got to prison. I
Speaker 1: was absolutely terrified and had to learn very quickly how
Speaker 1: to adapt in a maximum security prison. You have to
Speaker 1: always pay attention to what's going around you, and you
Speaker 1: have to kind of learn how to bob and weave
Speaker 1: between people. You didn't want to draw any attention to yourself.
Speaker 1: It's a very scary place, and not only is it
Speaker 1: scary from the other inmates, but not all the officers
Speaker 1: are on the up and up. The officers are also
Speaker 1: very scary. So I got to prison, and naturally I
Speaker 1: was quite angry, and I knew that if I didn't
Speaker 1: do something with my anger, I was just going to
Speaker 1: go down a dark path. So I threw myself into
Speaker 1: learning about my own case, and I got certified and
Speaker 1: became a law clerk, which of course is how I
Speaker 1: met a man of Bromfield. We were co workers in
Speaker 1: the law library. We both left the maximum security prison
Speaker 1: and we found ourselves at a faith and character based
Speaker 1: war camp and that was a much safer environment, albeit
Speaker 1: did not have a c so it was extremely excruciatingly odd,
Speaker 1: but I traded the heat for the safety, and I
Speaker 1: worked with Amanda in the law library and we did
Speaker 1: every think we could for other people in there, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: both learning each other's case as well as our own case.
Speaker 1: And that's how I survived. Yeah. I don't know where.
Speaker 1: I don't know where they fake people like you that
Speaker 1: find this sort of otherworldly strength, spirit, courage, whatever you
Speaker 1: want to call it. But I'm just glad you did,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad that Amanda Broomfield did as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: she just recently joined us here on wrongful convictions, and yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm so freaking glad that you both found the strength
Speaker 1: to pull through and be here. Well, I had a
Speaker 1: good support system, Jason. I had wonderful parents and my
Speaker 1: brother and my children, and they made sure I had
Speaker 1: all of my needs because you know, in prison they
Speaker 1: don't give you shampoo and deodorant and things like that.
Speaker 1: You have to buy these things. Thankfully, I had an
Speaker 1: amazing support system that are still my support system. And
Speaker 1: you know, it was very touching because not only did
Speaker 1: I have a support system for my family, but my
Speaker 1: clients and the childcare. All of my daycare babies that
Speaker 1: I've raised grew up and sent me checks while I
Speaker 1: was in prison to help pay for whatever I needed
Speaker 1: in there. So these daycare babies that I raised were
Speaker 1: taking care of being while I was in prison. Well
Speaker 1: that's full circle, isn't it. I Mean, it's a little
Speaker 1: bit of light in a miserable dark place and speaks
Speaker 1: to your character as well. So, Seth Alison, how did
Speaker 1: this then eventually make its way to your desks? And
Speaker 1: how did the process finally right itself? You know what's
Speaker 1: unique I think about this case is that it got
Speaker 1: to us so much earlier than a lot of other cases.
Speaker 1: I've gotten guys out of prison who have spent thirty
Speaker 1: or thirty five or over forty years in prison, and
Speaker 1: once you find out about that one thirty years on
Speaker 1: the line, it's very hard to rectify that. It's a
Speaker 1: reclamation project that sometimes it's beset with procedural problems that
Speaker 1: doesn't really allow you to turn it around. But here
Speaker 1: we were able to get in on the initial post
Speaker 1: conviction motion, where you have all of the potential claims
Speaker 1: available to you have no procedural problems. And so we
Speaker 1: only did that because Stephanie wrote to us almost immediately
Speaker 1: after her initial appeal was denied. And what was interesting
Speaker 1: is that she had written to us. I was litigating
Speaker 1: another case with Kate Judson, and we come to find
Speaker 1: out that this other person's case, Amanda Brownfield and Stephanie
Speaker 1: we're friends in prison, and that's kind of how Stephanie
Speaker 1: got hooked up with us. I remember being in the
Speaker 1: car driving home from a different prison visit talking to
Speaker 1: Kate about Stephanie's application and saying, Hey, you want to
Speaker 1: do another one, and that was kind of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's get it this case has some crazy issues in it.
Speaker 1: So what became clear to us is what we've already
Speaker 1: talked about. The lawyer didn't use the bio mechanical engineer
Speaker 1: that he had at his disposal to rebut the state's
Speaker 1: soft impactory how this supposed abuse happened. What happens is
Speaker 1: that juries are looking for an answer, and the prosecution
Speaker 1: gave them an answer. It's incumbent upon the defense to
Speaker 1: rebut that if you don't, your client's going to be convicted.
Speaker 1: And so what happened here is that not only did
Speaker 1: they not give them an answer, they put up another
Speaker 1: expert who agreed that this was from violent trauma. So
Speaker 1: the defense expert agreed is from violent trauma, and they
Speaker 1: never went into any of them lying medical issues that
Speaker 1: were very clear that existed. So that was kind of
Speaker 1: what we focus. Can we get the biomic an engineer
Speaker 1: to look at the studies through the calculations to prove
Speaker 1: that slamming on a soft surface can't cause these injuries?
Speaker 1: And can we talk to pediatric endochronologist, pediatric genesist, forensic
Speaker 1: pathologists or clinical pathologists, a new radiologist to look at
Speaker 1: all of this material in the case. To help us
Speaker 1: understand whether this could even be trauma and if it wasn't,
Speaker 1: trauma could come from another underlying medical issue, particularly issue
Speaker 1: of related diabetes. And when we were able to do that,
Speaker 1: what we found out is that we had an expert,
Speaker 1: a biomechanical expert, who was able to say with supreme
Speaker 1: confidence that this slamming on a soft service could not
Speaker 1: have scientifically caused this child's injuries, because he did the
Speaker 1: pre eminent study of just this type of scenario, and
Speaker 1: it proven that a human of Stephanie's size can't create
Speaker 1: enough force to cause those injuries in that child's brain
Speaker 1: without also causing massive external injuries of course there were none,
Speaker 1: and so scientifically that they couldn't do that. Our experts
Speaker 1: together showed that this was a situation where the child
Speaker 1: had a blood clot in their brain. The blood clot
Speaker 1: in their brain caused spillover bleeding into the brain because
Speaker 1: blood couldn't get out of the brain back to the
Speaker 1: other parts of the body, and that caused swelling in
Speaker 1: the brain, which caused the retinal hemorrhages which caused this
Speaker 1: child's disease. And all of this was caused by thicking
Speaker 1: of the blood due to a diabetic situation. And so
Speaker 1: we had this evidence now, but the key was to
Speaker 1: show that the trial council violated Stephanie's constitutional right to
Speaker 1: council and effective assistance of that council by not bringing
Speaker 1: about all of this information, all of which would prove
Speaker 1: that there was no crime here and that this child
Speaker 1: died from a tragic a medical situation that was just undiagnosed.
Speaker 1: So that's what we did. What was it like, Stephanie,
Speaker 1: when all of a sudden You've got sort of the
Speaker 1: dream team, right, I mean the Florida Innocence Project. Those
Speaker 1: of us who worked in the Innocence moviment know that
Speaker 1: the Florida innescens Project is held in the highest regard.
Speaker 1: So when you got the letter or a call or
Speaker 1: whatever it was saying that they were going to represent you,
Speaker 1: what was that like, Well, it was a phone call
Speaker 1: from Seth at the Florida Innocence Project and he patched
Speaker 1: through Kay Judson. At that time, she was with the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project of Wisconsin now with the Center for Integrity
Speaker 1: and Forensic Science. And I also had Josh Teffer, who
Speaker 1: is with the Exoneration Project out of Chicago, so it
Speaker 1: was unbelievable to know that not only did I managed
Speaker 1: to get one innocence project, but I managed to get
Speaker 1: three projects all working. And I guess I just kind
Speaker 1: of like threw up my hands and was just like, finally, finally,
Speaker 1: like I knew there had to be something there, and
Speaker 1: finally somebody founded, right, all of a sudden, you've got
Speaker 1: the literal dream team on your side, And Alison, can
Speaker 1: you take us through how you got involved in what
Speaker 1: eventually led to Stephanie's freedom. I love this. This, This
Speaker 1: is my favorite part of the story. So Seth with
Speaker 1: Kate and Josh did that lengthy post conviction hearing in
Speaker 1: front of Judge Burgess, which he denied. They appealed, and
Speaker 1: the Second District Court of Appeal overturned that denial of
Speaker 1: the post conviction motion, finding Stephanie's original trial lawyers to
Speaker 1: be ineffective. Seth and I have worked on a number
Speaker 1: of different cases or just sort of floated in the
Speaker 1: same circles myself at the trial court level and set
Speaker 1: more in the post conviction world. I couldn't remember when
Speaker 1: Stephanie's case was overturned. Set and I having this meeting
Speaker 1: of the minds where he was like, you know, myself
Speaker 1: and Kate and Josh obviously still want to be involved,
Speaker 1: but we need somebody who does trial work. And I
Speaker 1: was like, well, I would love to be involved. And
Speaker 1: so that's when I got appointed. Was like, okay, we're
Speaker 1: back for a new trial. And instead of the State
Speaker 1: of Florida saying we concede, the state indicated it intended
Speaker 1: to retry Stephanie. And so we were like, bring it,
Speaker 1: y'all are prosecuting an innocent woman and we're going to
Speaker 1: embarrass you. Was the mentality that we had. It was
Speaker 1: all new prosecutors, all new defense attorneys, and we were
Speaker 1: gearing up for a battle. Frankly, to make a very
Speaker 1: long story short, the state would not agree to not
Speaker 1: go forward, but to bring an end to this for everyone,
Speaker 1: the Harris family, Spurgeon family, the state was willing to
Speaker 1: accept what we call an Alfred please, where a defendant
Speaker 1: pleads guilty but it's still exerting his or her innocence,
Speaker 1: saying I'm pleading guilty but because I believe it's in
Speaker 1: my best interest to do so, not because I'm legally
Speaker 1: admitting to doing what I'm accused of, and I think
Speaker 1: we all felt like because of all the shortcomings in
Speaker 1: the criminal justice system as they exist, the over reliance
Speaker 1: on this pediatrician who doesn't seem to understand science. I
Speaker 1: couldn't tell Stephanie there was no chance that a jury
Speaker 1: would convict her. Yet Stephanie wanted her life back, she
Speaker 1: wanted her family back, she wanted to be able to
Speaker 1: put her toes in the ocean, and so for everyone's sake,
Speaker 1: she agreed to enter this Alfred plea and bring resolution
Speaker 1: to the case. So, look, no one could fall at you,
Speaker 1: Stephanie for making the decision that you made. People make
Speaker 1: it all the time. I can find a lot of
Speaker 1: falls in the state for dangling that sword over your
Speaker 1: head again. So when did you come home, Stephanie? And
Speaker 1: can you tell us what it was like walking out
Speaker 1: into the fresh air? Give us as much as you can. Well,
Speaker 1: it was definitely hot. I had an entourage of people
Speaker 1: out there along with Netflix. We're doing a series, so
Speaker 1: everybody was filming. I got in the car and the
Speaker 1: first thing that did was hand me a cell phone.
Speaker 1: I didn't know what to do with it. I think
Speaker 1: they were just so excited to finally give me some
Speaker 1: piece of technology, and I went to wall Laws. My
Speaker 1: kids had always told me about Watlas, and when I
Speaker 1: walked in, it was just so overwhelming, all the lights
Speaker 1: and all the things to look at. And I know
Speaker 1: that probably sounds so silly, but when you've been trapped
Speaker 1: inside for so long, and I must look like I
Speaker 1: was from outer space because my eyes are staring at
Speaker 1: the lights, I'm sure my mouth was open. It was interesting.
Speaker 1: I allowed Netflix to come home with me and film
Speaker 1: me coming in, and that was a really difficult thing
Speaker 1: to allow them to film me and my most weakest,
Speaker 1: vulnerable moment of happy tears. That I did allow it
Speaker 1: because I wanted to help bring more knowledge when the
Speaker 1: series finally does air, amen to that, and I think
Speaker 1: we all who work in this field for those happy moments. So, Stephanie, you,
Speaker 1: on top of all the other unspeakable treatment that you
Speaker 1: had to endure, you also, as you mentioned, had to
Speaker 1: spend a king's ransom, you know, to try to defend yourself,
Speaker 1: just a thousands of dollars. And you aren't a rich
Speaker 1: person going into this, So you now have a bigger
Speaker 1: support system, right over a hundred thousand people who are
Speaker 1: listening to your voice. Now. I'm sure many of them
Speaker 1: would like to do something to help you if they could.
Speaker 1: Is there some way for people to donate, or is
Speaker 1: there anything else that you could think of that they
Speaker 1: might be able to do. I have a go fund
Speaker 1: me and I would appreciate anything that anybody could do
Speaker 1: to help me get back on my feet. I've been
Speaker 1: home a year now and I really haven't been able
Speaker 1: to build up a whole lot, so I would appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Jason, Yes, and we will link to that
Speaker 1: in a bio of our episodes. So please take a
Speaker 1: moment right now, if you're listening and you have something
Speaker 1: you can spare, please go to the link in the
Speaker 1: bio and donate, and we're going to join you in
Speaker 1: doing that and trying to help make this next period
Speaker 1: of your life a little bit less difficult. And listen
Speaker 1: if you're sitting at home wondering how we can help
Speaker 1: to prevent these wrongful convictions from happening in the future,
Speaker 1: besides serving on juries and voting like we talked about,
Speaker 1: don't eight to Allison Miller's campaign. We're gonna again have
Speaker 1: the link in the bio. But Alison, what is the
Speaker 1: way if people just want to write it down right now,
Speaker 1: and we're going to get a bunch of hopefully money
Speaker 1: flowing your way and help fix this system that wrongthly
Speaker 1: convicted Stephanie Spurgeon, Amanda Broomfield and so many others. Well,
Speaker 1: that would be amazing. My website is Miller for State
Speaker 1: Attorney dot com. You can get involved and you can
Speaker 1: donate securely and easily through my website. I'm on pretty
Speaker 1: much every social media platform. So now we turned to
Speaker 1: my favorite part of the show, and everyone who's a
Speaker 1: regular listener knows what to expect, and by that I
Speaker 1: mean closing arguments, and for anyone who's new to this,
Speaker 1: closing arguments works very simply. First, I once again think
Speaker 1: our incredible guests today, Alison Miller, attorney and candidate for
Speaker 1: State's Attorney in the State of Florida, Seth Miller, executive
Speaker 1: director of the Florida Innocence Project and personal hero of mine,
Speaker 1: and stephinitely expurge in my new personal hero. And what
Speaker 1: happens next is I turned my microphone off and leave
Speaker 1: each of yours on so that you can share any
Speaker 1: final thoughts that we hadn't may be covered yet, or
Speaker 1: anything else you want to say. And I'm just going
Speaker 1: to kick back in my chair. Let's start with Seth
Speaker 1: and Allison and then just hand the mic off to
Speaker 1: Stephanie and she'll take us out. So one of the
Speaker 1: things that I think about coming out of these cases
Speaker 1: working on others now is how these things keep happening.
Speaker 1: We talked about it here, and I wonder what we
Speaker 1: can do to prevent them from happening in the future,
Speaker 1: and how we can end what is like a cottage
Speaker 1: industry of medical fabrication, and so that to me is
Speaker 1: the next step of this. We should continue to get
Speaker 1: people out of prison who are innocent, who put in
Speaker 1: prison for accidents or for things that have medical causes
Speaker 1: that weren't even crimes at all. This is the leading
Speaker 1: cause of rumful conviction and women. We have to also
Speaker 1: think about how we can prevent it in the first place,
Speaker 1: and there has to be a change in the medical community.
Speaker 1: If medical doctors are still being trained everyday medical school
Speaker 1: to make the same mistakes that the medical doctors in
Speaker 1: this case in other cases have made, and to me,
Speaker 1: that's the next stage of how do we prevent this
Speaker 1: and really just eradicate this fabrication from the criminal legal system. Jason,
Speaker 1: I want to echo what you said, is that Seth
Speaker 1: and Stephanie especially our personal heroes of mine as well,
Speaker 1: and Stephanie is part of the reason why I am
Speaker 1: running for state attorney. If people like us don't do
Speaker 1: this type of work, then nothing will ever change. People
Speaker 1: have to be more involved in their local down bound elections,
Speaker 1: whether it's called the district attorney or the state attorney.
Speaker 1: We have to take ownership in what prosecution looks like
Speaker 1: in our jurisdictions or this sort of thing will continue
Speaker 1: to perpetuate. And so if elected State Attorney, I don't
Speaker 1: intend to prosecute child abuse cases based exclusively on the
Speaker 1: testimony of Dr Sally Smith already enlisted people like Seth
Speaker 1: and Kate understanding we're going to have to continue prosecuting
Speaker 1: child abuse. Of course, everyone wants child abuse prosecuted, but
Speaker 1: we need to do it with reliable forensic evidence. And
Speaker 1: we have seen repeatedly in this jurisdiction at they least
Speaker 1: that this pediatrician is a danger and everyone frankly seems
Speaker 1: willing to ignore it. Stephanie closing arguments, well, I would
Speaker 1: like to start by thanking Allison. I appreciate your confidence
Speaker 1: in me coming into this. I also, of course have
Speaker 1: to thank Seth the Florida Innocence Project, Kate Judson from
Speaker 1: the Center of Integrity and Forensic Sciences, Josh Teffer from
Speaker 1: the Exoneration Project, all of their staff, the experts, and
Speaker 1: all the law students, because it took an army to
Speaker 1: bring me home. And I'd also like to thank all
Speaker 1: the people who donate and support organizations like this, because
Speaker 1: if it wasn't for your support, people like me would
Speaker 1: still be trapped behind those person eights. I'd like to
Speaker 1: urge law enforcement and medical staff to not assume abuse
Speaker 1: when they see a triad of injuries, to not race
Speaker 1: in emotionally charged and being more diligent. I hope that
Speaker 1: my story brings awareness to shaking baby syndrome and abuse
Speaker 1: and head trauma. I appreciate you allowing me to share
Speaker 1: my story for the first time today. Thank you Jason.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wardis. With research by Lila Robinson. The music
Speaker 1: in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
Speaker 1: composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and
Speaker 1: on Twitter at wrong Conviction. As it is at Lava
Speaker 1: for Good on all three platforms, You can also follow
Speaker 1: me on both TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason flam Raval.
Speaker 1: Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcasts in
Speaker 1: association with Signal Company Number one