Speaker 1: In January of twenty twenty two, we brought you the
Speaker 1: story of Stephanie Spurgeon. It's a shaken Baby syndrome story,
Speaker 1: and she was joined by her attorneys, Seth Miller of
Speaker 1: the Innison's Project of Florida as well as Alison Miller
Speaker 1: no relation, who recently ran for Florida's state attorney. But
Speaker 1: before we share her story again, we first wanted to
Speaker 1: share a recording of when we caught up with Stephanie
Speaker 1: at the twenty twenty three Innocence Network Conference in Phoenix, Arizona.
Speaker 1: For those who are not familiar with this event, it's
Speaker 1: an annual gathering of the innocence community from all over
Speaker 1: the country ex houonnaies, attorneys, advocates, and folks like us
Speaker 1: from Lava for Good Podcasts. So Stephanie sat down with
Speaker 1: us for a chat and I'm going to let her
Speaker 1: fill you in on what she's been up to here
Speaker 1: at the Innocence Network Conference with one of my favorite humans,
Speaker 1: Stephanie Spurgeon. And I'm sure everybody's wondering that what are
Speaker 1: you up to now? Besides smiling and walking around making
Speaker 1: everybody happier.
Speaker 2: I'm absolutely enjoying freedom We've spent a lot of time
Speaker 2: trying to just reconnect with everybody. It's been a lot
Speaker 2: of years that were lost, so it's been really good
Speaker 2: to kind of really make up family time. Also, I
Speaker 2: advocated for Alison Miller, who was running for state attorney.
Speaker 2: I've done some public speaking, which I absolutely love to do.
Speaker 2: Recently I did Miami Andison's clinic in Boston College down
Speaker 2: in Jupiter, Florida, and my daughter and I started our
Speaker 2: own little podcast.
Speaker 1: Huh.
Speaker 2: It's called freedom Fighters, So you know it's we film
Speaker 2: right there at our car.
Speaker 1: I have a funny feeling we might be linking that
Speaker 1: at our bio. So freedom fighter is a great name
Speaker 1: for a podcast and I'm looking forward to hearing it myself.
Speaker 1: It's gonna give me something good to listen to on
Speaker 1: the plane. Very good.
Speaker 3: It's very uncensored.
Speaker 1: And do you I mean, I know you're a freedom
Speaker 1: fighter and I know you get joy from helping other people,
Speaker 1: both what do you do for yourself?
Speaker 2: You know? Actually my main focus is I'm advocating for
Speaker 2: Michael Giovo, who's wrongfully convicted in Florida as much like mine.
Speaker 2: He was convicted in Florida and Penellas County. Doctor Sally
Speaker 2: Smith was his expert, and he was convicted two months
Speaker 2: after mine, and he has a life sentence.
Speaker 1: That's the same quote unquote expert that helped to wrongfully
Speaker 1: convict you.
Speaker 2: That is correct. I was lucky enough. I work for
Speaker 2: Keith Law Firm now, so I am working in the
Speaker 2: legal industry. We primarily do civil law. But it gives
Speaker 2: me a little bit more knowledge, more power to try
Speaker 2: to be able to fight for him. So I'm hoping
Speaker 2: maybe to develop some bills that won't maybe allow him
Speaker 2: to get a second chance to her to have his
Speaker 2: case hurt again.
Speaker 1: Well, it's fantastic, and listen, you are a beacon of
Speaker 1: light and you inspire me and all the rest of
Speaker 1: us to work harder as s Marter. So just keep
Speaker 1: on being you, you.
Speaker 2: Know, thank you. It's a pleasure being here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: As we wrapped up the interview, a kind of only
Speaker 1: at the Innocence Network conference, moment happened. A woman named
Speaker 1: Michelle Lopez approached us when she had heard Stephanie's story
Speaker 1: back in jail twenty twenty two on this podcast. She
Speaker 1: reached out to Stephanie over social media. Michelle's son, Trey Clay,
Speaker 1: is currently enduring a similar nightmare in California, and Stephanie's
Speaker 1: story brought some comfort to this grieving mother. And although
Speaker 1: they had been in contact before, the conference was their
Speaker 1: first chance to meet in person and kind of a
Speaker 1: serendipitous encounter for all of us. We'll have the Justice
Speaker 1: for Trey Clay Instagram account LinkedIn the bio, along with
Speaker 1: some info about Michael Giovo's case and Stephanie's podcast Freedom Fighters,
Speaker 1: and now, without any further ado, the incredible story of
Speaker 1: Stephanie Spurgeon. Stephanie Spurgeon was a married mother of two
Speaker 1: and a licensed childcare provider who had been running a
Speaker 1: daycare facility from her home in Florida for fifteen years.
Speaker 1: On August twenty first, two thousand and eight, one year
Speaker 1: old Maria Harris spent her first day at Stephanie's daycare.
Speaker 1: Maria's grandmother had picked up a sleeping Maria that day,
Speaker 1: but soon after had noticed that Maria was unresponsive and
Speaker 1: in distress. Ignoring other potential root causes and relying on
Speaker 1: the junk science of shaken baby syndrome, doctors opined that
Speaker 1: brain bleed and swelling were signs of child abuse, placing
Speaker 1: blame on the brand new childcare provider, Stephanie Spurgeon, and
Speaker 1: when Maria died seven days later, the charges were upgraded
Speaker 1: to murder, but with the lack of external injuries, the
Speaker 1: state changed its shaken baby theory, concocting a new narrative
Speaker 1: in which Maria had been repeatedly struck against the soft surface.
Speaker 1: The defense failed to pivot to this new theory, instead
Speaker 1: presenting a shaken baby syndrome defense, and with the states
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 testimon 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 wrathful conviction. Welcome back to wrongful Conviction. Today's episode
Speaker 1: is well, I'm going to be honest with you, it's
Speaker 1: terrifying because this is a story that is both unique
Speaker 1: and also somehow not uncommon, and it involves an innocent
Speaker 1: woman working at a daycare center who got caught up
Speaker 1: in the criminal legal system for no reason of her
Speaker 1: own making. I'm going to introduce our incredible guest today
Speaker 1: because we have three, including the woman who lived through
Speaker 1: this nightmare herself, Stephanie Spurgeon. First, I'm going to introduce
Speaker 1: are very distinguished group. Seth Miller is here. He's the
Speaker 1: executive director of the Innocence Project of Florida. It does
Speaker 1: incredible work day in and day out, pushing huge boulders
Speaker 1: uphills of justice. So Seth, thanks for being here.
Speaker 4: 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 Wisenhunt and is also
Speaker 1: currently running for the State's Attorney Office of Florida, and
Speaker 1: I hope people will support her because we need people
Speaker 1: like you in positions like that. But for the time being,
Speaker 1: we're happy to have you right where you are and
Speaker 1: right here on the mic. So Alison Miller, welcome to
Speaker 1: Ronfel Conviction. Thank you so much for having me and Stephanie.
Speaker 1: What can I say? I feel like the whole human
Speaker 1: race shows you a debt of gratitude for sharing your
Speaker 1: story and for just being the strong, courageous woman that
Speaker 1: you are. And I appreciate you being here. So Stephanie,
Speaker 1: to you. Also, welcome to Ronfel Conviction.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jason. It's my pleasure sure.
Speaker 1: And so Stephanie, this is the story that we've heard
Speaker 1: time and time again where somebody like yourself is doing
Speaker 1: you know, let's call it what it is, essential work.
Speaker 1: Where would we be as a society without daycare centers?
Speaker 1: The working world would grind to a halt. And yet
Speaker 1: people like you too often end up in situations like
Speaker 1: the one we're talking about today. I mean, it really
Speaker 1: makes my heart hurt. But let's please take us back
Speaker 1: before this incident happened in two thousand and eight. Can
Speaker 1: you tell us what your life was like back then.
Speaker 2: I was married for nineteen years and I had two
Speaker 2: beautiful children. We had a beautiful life. We were a
Speaker 2: well knit family. We did a lot of family vacations.
Speaker 2: I was a licensing home daycare provider for fifteen years.
Speaker 2: The parents that would come into my home, they became
Speaker 2: part of my family, Their kids became part of my family.
Speaker 2: We would celebrate holidays together and different things. It was
Speaker 2: very fulfilling. I was able to work with children, I
Speaker 2: was able to be at home with my own children.
Speaker 2: I decided at one point to go into special needs children.
Speaker 2: So I took lots of children that came in who
Speaker 2: had speech issues or different disabilities, and I grew a
Speaker 2: real hart for these kids because not a lot of
Speaker 2: places would accept any special needs children. And then I
Speaker 2: decided to branch off a little bit further and start
Speaker 2: taking teenage parent children. So Esther Harris was actually the
Speaker 2: very first teen mom that I took. She was seventeen
Speaker 2: years old when I was introduced to her and Maria.
Speaker 1: And so, not only are you taking care of other
Speaker 1: people's kids, you're doing it in your own home, opening
Speaker 1: your doors and your heart, and taking care of kids
Speaker 1: who have issues with other people. Well might not want
Speaker 1: to open their home too, 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, right. 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 and eight, which is
Speaker 1: when this tragedy occurred, of course, and I said tragedy,
Speaker 1: not crime. That's deliberate, because that's what it was. And
Speaker 1: so Seth, do you want to set the stage for
Speaker 1: us of what happened on that awful day and how
Speaker 1: this became a criminal matter.
Speaker 4: When I think about these cases when a child dies,
Speaker 4: a lot of times the folks involved in trying to
Speaker 4: figure out how that happened kind of go nutty. They
Speaker 4: aren't able to take sober views of what might have
Speaker 4: happened to that child. And that's what happened here in
Speaker 4: this case. Stephie Spurgeon was running an in home daycare
Speaker 4: at her home. It was better business Bureau rated, had
Speaker 4: generations worth of children who come through the daycare who
Speaker 4: really positive experiences, their families had positive experiences. And the child,
Speaker 4: Maria Harris, was our first day at the daycare. And
Speaker 4: yet on this day, this poor child was suffering from
Speaker 4: what was clearly a distress, a medical situation.
Speaker 2: When Maria's grandmother, Patricia came and picked her up that day,
Speaker 2: Maria had been sleeping. So I reached into the pack
Speaker 2: and play and I picked her up, and she kind
Speaker 2: of stirred in my arms, and I passed her to Patricia,
Speaker 2: and she stirred in Patricia's arms, and then Patricia took
Speaker 2: her and placed her in the car and drove her home.
Speaker 2: Thirty minutes later is when we got the phone call Maria.
Speaker 2: I guess was deteriorating as she was sleeping, and I
Speaker 2: was unaware that there was any issue because I simply
Speaker 2: thought she was asleep.
Speaker 4: At the end of the day, the child was growing up.
Speaker 4: The child was crying and was clearly kind of lifeless
Speaker 4: in a lot of ways, and called nine one one.
Speaker 4: It took the child to the hospital and when they
Speaker 4: were on the way to the hospital, they tested the
Speaker 4: child's blood sugar and the child had a high four
Speaker 4: hundreds of blood sugar. And I don't know if any
Speaker 4: of y'all have diabetes or test your blood sugar regularly,
Speaker 4: but that is four to five times the normal level.
Speaker 4: So this child is in major distress. What they do
Speaker 4: when they get the child to the hospital is they
Speaker 4: realized after doing a number of tests on the child
Speaker 4: that the child's suffering from a brain lead a subdural
Speaker 4: hematoma and the child has brain swelling and that has
Speaker 4: led to the child having retinal hemorrhages and instead of
Speaker 4: treating the child for what looked like a diabetic situation,
Speaker 4: a diabetic distress because the child had the subdual heemo tone,
Speaker 4: because the child had this brain swelling and the retinal hemorrhages.
Speaker 4: The doctors immediately assumed that this was an abusive situation
Speaker 4: because they thought that this was the three ingredients, the
Speaker 4: triad as they call it, cause by taking baby syndrome
Speaker 4: or what is more commonly known now is abusive head trauma.
Speaker 4: So that had a chance to try to treat this
Speaker 4: child to maybe ameliorate or even prevent a bigger problem
Speaker 4: or death, to treat this metabolic, this diabetic situation, but
Speaker 4: instead they assumed it was abuse, and we were often
Speaker 4: running taking a medical situation and elevating it to the crime,
Speaker 4: and unfortunately, this 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 SBS now.
Speaker 1: It was initially introduced as a hypothesis by British pediatric
Speaker 1: neurosurgeon doctor Norman guth Kelch, who was trying to explain
Speaker 1: a cause for inexplicable child deaths in which a child
Speaker 1: or baby, toddler whatever had presented subdural hematoma otherwise known
Speaker 1: as bleeding in the brain, retinal hemorrhage, so you know,
Speaker 1: bleeding in the eyes and brain swelling or cerebral edemon Now.
Speaker 1: Doctor Cuthkelch hypothesized that perhaps a typical method of scolding
Speaker 1: a child in Great Britain at the time, giving the
Speaker 1: child a good shake, maybe that was the cause for
Speaker 1: unintended or unexplained child deaths in which this triad of
Speaker 1: medical findings occurred. He never was able to prove this,
Speaker 1: He just hypothesized it and caution parents against the practice. Understandably, however,
Speaker 1: since that hypothesis, the criminal legal system just sort of
Speaker 1: ran them up with this idea, right leaping to the
Speaker 1: conclusion that any child presenting those symptoms, especially if there
Speaker 1: was any other bruisings, had been fatally abused like sort
Speaker 1: of one size fits all which is ridiculous, and that
Speaker 1: the person less responsible for the child therefore must have
Speaker 1: been the culprit.
Speaker 3: And I think we as people understanding the inner workings
Speaker 3: of the human mind, when bad things happen, we want
Speaker 3: to be able to say there's someone or something responsible
Speaker 3: for that bad thing happening. And so where there was
Speaker 3: a legitimate science maybe at the inception, this idea has
Speaker 3: been horribly bastardized to get convictions involving usually the death
Speaker 3: of infants or toddlers, and Stephanie's case is a perfect
Speaker 3: example of that, where there is legitimate scientific evidence that
Speaker 3: this child was in medical distress that went ignored by
Speaker 3: medical professionals because it is easier to say, oh, this
Speaker 3: child must have been harmed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's worth noting that in recent years, as
Speaker 1: doctors in larger and larger numbers, I've been challenging the
Speaker 1: notion of shaking baby syndrome. They've identified, get this, over
Speaker 1: eighty different preexisting conditions that can cause what they call
Speaker 1: the triad of findings that were historically just attributed to
Speaker 1: shaking baby syndrome almost automatically. Right, So the science is there,
Speaker 1: but I mean, I wish I could say when the
Speaker 1: criminal legal system is going to catch up, it's entirely
Speaker 1: possible that it never will because science, let's face, it
Speaker 1: looks forward, while the legal system only looks backward at precedent,
Speaker 1: sort of the opposite. And so Stephanie, if you could
Speaker 1: take us back to when you were arrested, what all
Speaker 1: happened before the trial.
Speaker 2: My first arrest was August twenty first, I was twenty second,
Speaker 2: maybe two thousand and eight. I was arrested on aggravated
Speaker 2: child abuse. I went to Neells County Jail. I was
Speaker 2: housed in a solitaire cell because of course my face
Speaker 2: was on the news, and I was able to bond
Speaker 2: out the next day. I think it's important to say
Speaker 2: my bond was fifty thousand dollars, and my parents got
Speaker 2: an attorney for me, which was fifty thousand dollars, So
Speaker 2: right away we're in the hole. I came home and
Speaker 2: was unable to have a daycare. Of course, so I
Speaker 2: had no income, so that became an issue immediately. Maria
Speaker 2: passed away seven days later. I was rearrested six weeks later,
Speaker 2: on November eighth, two thousand and eight, on capitol felony
Speaker 2: murder I had just taken my son to his bus
Speaker 2: stop in the morning, and when I came back home,
Speaker 2: I put up in a driveway like three squad cars
Speaker 2: surrounded me, and everybody come racing out, screaming and yelling,
Speaker 2: and put me in cuffs and put me in the
Speaker 2: back of the cruiser and took me back to County Jail.
Speaker 2: When they brought me in from booking that day, they
Speaker 2: brought me straight to Solitaire cell in the lobby area,
Speaker 2: and I could look out and see my face on
Speaker 2: the news. And as I'm looking at my face on
Speaker 2: the news, I'm looking at the other inmates that are
Speaker 2: in there getting processed in, and they're all looking back
Speaker 2: at me and that Solitaire cell. So it was a
Speaker 2: very scary situation. There was a grand jury hearing, and
Speaker 2: the attorney that I had that was fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: He wouldn't try a capital case, so we had to
Speaker 2: hire another firm and they cost us one hundred thousand.
Speaker 1: I ended up.
Speaker 2: Getting indicted and then we moved for a bond hearing.
Speaker 2: My bond hearing was successful, except it was three hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty thousand dollars with an angle monitor and no
Speaker 2: contact with any child in the age of twelve. I
Speaker 2: thought there was no way that my family was ever
Speaker 2: going to be able to come up with those kind
Speaker 2: of funds because we had already spent so much. They
Speaker 2: did come up with it. They fundraised, They drained all
Speaker 2: of your savings, accounts, everything, and one night, on January
Speaker 2: twenty sixth, two thousand and nine, after I think eighty
Speaker 2: nine days in a solitaire cell, I was released at
Speaker 2: two am, so I was able to come home and
Speaker 2: wake both of my kids up. My daughter and I
Speaker 2: ended up sitting on the front porch in a rocking
Speaker 2: chair and watch the sunrise together. It was very hard
Speaker 2: to sleep because I kept thinking I was going to
Speaker 2: wake up and be back in there. The nightmare would
Speaker 2: be there again.
Speaker 1: This episode is underwritten by AIG, a leading global insurance company,
Speaker 1: and by Accenture, a global professional services company with leading
Speaker 1: capabilities in digital, cloud and security. Working to reform the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system is a key pillar of the AIG
Speaker 1: pro Bono program, which it's free legal services and other
Speaker 1: support to many nonprofit organizations and individuals most in need
Speaker 1: as part of Extensure's commitment to racial and civil justice.
Speaker 1: Accenture's legal Access program provides pro bono legal services in
Speaker 1: partnership with more than forty organizations bringing meaningful change to
Speaker 1: people and communities worldwide.
Speaker 4: There were signals even before the trial that the state
Speaker 4: was going to move away from a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis.
Speaker 4: The real issue in this case is that we had
Speaker 4: these presentations in the brain and the skull, and the
Speaker 4: doctors were used to saying, oh, this could only be abused,
Speaker 4: it's shaking baby syndrome. The problem is these things are
Speaker 4: normally associated with signs of abuse, external injuries, and this
Speaker 4: child did not have a scratch or a bruis, or
Speaker 4: not even a single mark on her. And so the
Speaker 4: doctors are trying to figure out, well, how can we
Speaker 4: make this abuse and explain away the fact that there's
Speaker 4: no visual injuries.
Speaker 1: On this child.
Speaker 4: And this is how what they call the child abuse
Speaker 4: pediatrician I'm using air quotes. She came up with the
Speaker 4: theory that, well, the reason there's no injuries that are
Speaker 4: apparent on the outside is because the child was slammed
Speaker 4: repeatedly on a soft surface like a crib mattress.
Speaker 1: So this case is nutty, right, because you don't see
Speaker 1: it very often that the state changes their theory sort
Speaker 1: of midstream, right, So then they came up with this
Speaker 1: soft impact theory. But the crazy thing is it seemed
Speaker 1: like her attorneys were defending a different theory than the
Speaker 1: one that the state was trying to convict her on.
Speaker 1: Am I mistaken about that? That's exactly right.
Speaker 4: The defense attorney was very focused on shaking inmy syndrome.
Speaker 4: And when I deposed this attorney in post conviction, I
Speaker 4: asked him about cases that he had done previously, and
Speaker 4: what I found out was that he had done a
Speaker 4: series of shaking baby syndrome cases where he got favorable
Speaker 4: results from his clients. So he had his pat experts
Speaker 4: in a formula for how he would approach these cases.
Speaker 4: But he simply failed to learn his own case well
Speaker 4: enough to know that he could not simply employ the
Speaker 4: same formula that he employed in other cases where shaken
Speaker 4: baby syndrome was a theory. Because not all cases are
Speaker 4: the same, they're not creating equal In this case, the
Speaker 4: state had already abandoned the shaking baby syndrome theory for
Speaker 4: this seft impact theory, and so we're pressing long in
Speaker 4: a case they get the biomechanical expert. They do the
Speaker 4: thing that a lot of people don't do. They get
Speaker 4: the right expert, they prepare that expert, but they prepare
Speaker 4: them for the wrong theory. And there was this striking
Speaker 4: moment in the trial where after the defense attorney sits down,
Speaker 4: he thinks he's done a great job with the biomechanical expert.
Speaker 4: And the first question the state asked the expert when
Speaker 4: they get up is who told you that this was
Speaker 4: a shaken baby syndrome case. It was a devastating moment
Speaker 4: in the trial. And of course he could have put
Speaker 4: his expert back up, got them to prepare all the calculations,
Speaker 4: and he failed to do that because he just didn't
Speaker 4: even understand his own case.
Speaker 3: The State of Florida in their prosecution, if Stephanie relied
Speaker 3: on one particular pediatrician that they frequently rely on. It's
Speaker 3: so hard because these doctors and experts come in to
Speaker 3: court couched with credibility and reliability, and especially in areas
Speaker 3: like Vanillas and Pasco County where we've used the same
Speaker 3: experts forever, it's hard helping whomever the FactFinder is, jurors
Speaker 3: or judges to understand this is a misapplication of science.
Speaker 3: And so you get doctors that come in and they
Speaker 3: use words that we as average folks don't understand, and
Speaker 3: it sounds like, well, it must be true. And then
Speaker 3: at the end it's with the conclusion that this child
Speaker 3: died as a result of intentionally inflicted abuse of trauma.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the deck is truly stacked against even someone
Speaker 1: like Stephanie. Right, she gets swept under this title wive
Speaker 1: of nonsense that comes from preconceived biases and notions and things. Right,
Speaker 1: because someone sees her in the defendan's chair, they automatically
Speaker 1: assume somebody who was there must have done something to
Speaker 1: be there. Right, there's that you have to overcome. Then,
Speaker 1: as you said, there's all the medical stuff. A guy
Speaker 1: gets up there and reads his credentials sounds very impressive,
Speaker 1: and then spouting these theories that most jurors are not
Speaker 1: equipped to understand or unpacked. So they think they're doing
Speaker 1: the right thing. And I've have empathy for them too
Speaker 1: for making these mistakes. And Stephanie, you've lived through this,
Speaker 1: So I want to get back to you. What was
Speaker 1: this like from your perspective as a mom nineteen years married?
Speaker 1: You know, upstanding citizen to say the least.
Speaker 2: Well, Jason, I was absolutely devastating, to say the least.
Speaker 2: I kept waiting for truth to prevail. I knew that
Speaker 2: I didn't hurt Maria, so I knew that something would
Speaker 2: eventually come to surface that would show what had happened.
Speaker 2: It was terrifying, terrifying for me, It was terrifying for
Speaker 2: my children, It was terrifying for my then husband. It
Speaker 2: was awful, and in the end, it destroyed our whole family.
Speaker 2: I got a divorce, went to prison, and my kids
Speaker 2: grew up without their mom.
Speaker 1: How old were the kids when this happened.
Speaker 2: My son was twelve and my daughter was seventeen.
Speaker 1: So, Stephanie, when the jury went out, can you tell
Speaker 1: us what you were thinking at that time? Did you
Speaker 1: think that finally this wrong would be righted and this
Speaker 1: nightmare would come to an end.
Speaker 2: I just kept thinking that eventually they would realize that
Speaker 2: there's no way that I did this, That nobody heard Maria.
Speaker 2: There had to have been something else. They jury deliberated
Speaker 2: for twenty one and a half hours before they came
Speaker 2: back with an acquittal of capital filmy murder, but a
Speaker 2: guilty charge in manslaughter I heard a horrible noise from
Speaker 2: behind me, and it was my son crying out. It
Speaker 2: just felt like I was in a fog. I remember
Speaker 2: mouthing I love you to my family before they alled
Speaker 2: me out of a curtroom and put me back in
Speaker 2: that solitarire cell. I got to prison, I was absolutely
Speaker 2: terrified and had to learn very quickly how to adapt
Speaker 2: In a maximum security prison. You have to always pay
Speaker 2: attention to what's going around you, and you had to
Speaker 2: kind of learn how to bob and weave between people.
Speaker 2: You didn't want to draw any attention to yourself. It's
Speaker 2: a very scary place. And not only is it scary
Speaker 2: from the other inmates, but not all the officers are
Speaker 2: on the up and up. The officers are also very scary.
Speaker 2: So I got to prison, and naturally I was quite angry,
Speaker 2: and I knew that if I I didn't do something
Speaker 2: with my anger, I was just going to go down
Speaker 2: a dark path. So I threw myself into learning about
Speaker 2: my own case, and I got certified and became a
Speaker 2: law clerk, which of course is how I met Amanda Brumfield.
Speaker 2: We were co workers in the law library. We both
Speaker 2: left the maximum security prison and we found ourselves at
Speaker 2: a faith and character based war camp and that was
Speaker 2: a much safer environment, albeit it did not have AC
Speaker 2: so it was extremely excruciatingly hot. But I traded the
Speaker 2: heat for the safety and I worked with Amanda in
Speaker 2: the law library and we did everything we could for
Speaker 2: other people in there, meanwhile, both learning each other's case
Speaker 2: as well as our own case. And that's how I survived.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know where. I don't know where they
Speaker 1: make people like you that find this sort of otherworldly strength, spirit, courage,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it. But I'm just glad
Speaker 1: you did. And I'm glad that Amanda Broomfield did as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, she just recently joined us here on Rampel Convictions,
Speaker 1: and yeah, I'm so freaking glad that you both found
Speaker 1: the strength to pull through and be here.
Speaker 2: Well. I had a good support system, Jason. I had
Speaker 2: wonderful parents and my brother and my children, and they
Speaker 2: made sure I had all of my needs because you know,
Speaker 2: in prison they don't give you shampoo and deodor and
Speaker 2: things like that. You have to buy these things. Thankfully,
Speaker 2: I had an amazing support system that are still my
Speaker 2: support system. And you know, it was very touching because
Speaker 2: not only did I have a support system for my family,
Speaker 2: but my clients and the childcare. All of my daycare
Speaker 2: babies that I raised grew up and sent me checks
Speaker 2: while I was in prison to help pay for whatever
Speaker 2: I needed in there. So these daycare babies that I
Speaker 2: raised were taken care of being while I was in prison.
Speaker 1: Well that's full circle, isn't it. I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: little bit of light in a miserable dark place and
Speaker 1: speaks to your character as well. So Seth Allison, how
Speaker 1: did this then eventually make its way to your desks?
Speaker 1: And how did the process finally right itself?
Speaker 4: You know what's unique I think about this case is
Speaker 4: that it got to us so much earlier than a
Speaker 4: lot of other cases. I've gotten guys out of prison
Speaker 4: who have spent thirty or thirty five or over forty
Speaker 4: years in prison, and once you find out about that
Speaker 4: twenty or thirty years down the line, it's.
Speaker 1: Very hard to rectify that.
Speaker 4: It's a reclamation project that sometimes is beset with procedural
Speaker 4: problems that doesn't really allow you to turn it around.
Speaker 4: But here we were able to get in on the
Speaker 4: initial post conviction motion, where you have all of the
Speaker 4: potential claims available to you have no procedural problems. And
Speaker 4: so we only did that because Stephanie wrote to us
Speaker 4: almost immediately after her initial appeal was denied. And what
Speaker 4: was interesting is that she had written to us. I
Speaker 4: was litigating another case with Kate Json and we come
Speaker 4: to find out that this other person's case, Amanda Brownfield,
Speaker 4: and Stephanie were friends in prison, and that's kind of
Speaker 4: how Stephanie got hooked up with us. I remember being
Speaker 4: in the car driving home from a different prison visit
Speaker 4: talking to Kate about Stephanie's application and saying, hey, you
Speaker 4: want to do another one, and that was kind of like, yeah,
Speaker 4: let's get it. This case has some crazy issues in it.
Speaker 4: So what became clear to us is what we've already
Speaker 4: talked about. The lawyer didn't use the biomechanical engineer that
Speaker 4: he had at his disposal to rebut the state's soft
Speaker 4: impact theory how this supposed abuse happened. What happens is
Speaker 4: that juries are looking for an answer, and the prosecution
Speaker 4: gave them an answer. It's incumbent upon the defense to
Speaker 4: rebut that if you don't, your client's going to be convicted.
Speaker 4: And So what happened here is that not only did
Speaker 4: they not give them an answer, they put up another
Speaker 4: expert who agreed that this was from violent trauma. So
Speaker 4: the defense expert agreed is from violent trauma. And they
Speaker 4: never went into any of them doing medical issues that
Speaker 4: were very clear that existed.
Speaker 1: So that was kind of where we focused.
Speaker 4: Can we get the biomic anaut engineered to look at
Speaker 4: the studies, do the calculations to prove that slamming on
Speaker 4: a soft surface can't cause these injuries? And can we
Speaker 4: talk to pediatric endochronologists, pediatric genesis, forensic pathologists or clinical
Speaker 4: pathologists a neuroadiologists to look at all of this material
Speaker 4: in the case and help us understand whether this could
Speaker 4: even be trauma and if it wasn't trauma, could it
Speaker 4: come from another underlying medical issue, particularly issue of related diabetes.
Speaker 4: And when we were able to do that, what we
Speaker 4: found out is that we had an expert, a biomechanical expert,
Speaker 4: who was able to say with supreme confidence that this
Speaker 4: slamming on a soft service could not have scientifically caused
Speaker 4: this child's injuries because he did the preeminent study of
Speaker 4: just this type of scenario and it proven that a
Speaker 4: human of Stephanie's size can't create enough force to cause
Speaker 4: those injuries in that child's brain without also causing massive
Speaker 4: external injuries. Of course there were not, and so scientifically
Speaker 4: they couldn't do that. Our experts together showed that this
Speaker 4: was a situation where the child had a blood clot
Speaker 4: in their brain. The blood clot in their brain caused
Speaker 4: spillover bleeding into the brain because blood couldn't get out
Speaker 4: of the brain back to the other parts of the body,
Speaker 4: and that caused swelling in the brain, which caused the
Speaker 4: retinal hemorrhages which caused this child's disease. And all of
Speaker 4: this was caused by a thicking of the blood due
Speaker 4: to a diabetic situation. And so we have this evidence now.
Speaker 4: But the key was to show that the trial council
Speaker 4: violated Stephanie's constitutional right to counsel and effective assistance of
Speaker 4: that council by not bringing about all of this information,
Speaker 4: all of which would prove that there was no crime
Speaker 4: here and that this child died from a tragic a
Speaker 4: 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 work in the Innis's movement know that
Speaker 1: the Florida in 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?
Speaker 2: It was a phone call from Seth at the Florida
Speaker 2: Innocence Project and he patched through Kate Judson at that time,
Speaker 2: she was with the Innocence Project of Wisconsin now with
Speaker 2: the Center for Integrity and Forensic Science. And I also
Speaker 2: had Josh Teffer, who is with the Exoneration Project out
Speaker 2: of Chicago. So it was unbelievable to know that not
Speaker 2: only did I manage to get one innocence project, but
Speaker 2: I managed to get three projects all working. And I
Speaker 2: guess I just kind of like threw up my hands
Speaker 2: and was just like finally, finally, like I knew there
Speaker 2: had to be something there, and finally somebody sounded.
Speaker 1: Right, all of a sudden, you've got the literal dream
Speaker 1: team on your side. And Allison, can you take us
Speaker 1: through how you got involved in what eventually led to
Speaker 1: Stephanie's freedom. I love this. This This is my favorite
Speaker 1: part of the story.
Speaker 3: So Seth, with Kate and Josh did that lengthy post
Speaker 3: conviction hearing in front of Judge Burgess, which denied. They appealed,
Speaker 3: and the Second District Court of Appeal overturned that denial
Speaker 3: of the post conviction motion, finding Stephanie's original trial lawyers
Speaker 3: to be ineffective. Seth and I have worked on a
Speaker 3: number of different cases or just sort of floated in
Speaker 3: the same circles myself at the trial court level and
Speaker 3: set more in the post conviction world. I could remember
Speaker 3: when Stephanie's case was overturned, Seth and I having this
Speaker 3: meeting of the minds where he was like, you know,
Speaker 3: myself and Kate and Josh obviously still want to be involved,
Speaker 3: but we need somebody who does trial work. And I
Speaker 3: was like, well, I would love to be involved. And
Speaker 3: so that's when I got appointed. Was like, okay, we're
Speaker 3: back for a new trial. And instead of the State
Speaker 3: of Florida saying we concede, the state indicated it intended
Speaker 3: to retry Stephanie, and so we were like, bring it,
Speaker 3: y'all are prosecuting an innocent woman, and we're going to
Speaker 3: embarrass you was the mentality that we had. It was
Speaker 3: all new prosecutors, all new defense attorneys, and we were
Speaker 3: gearing up for a battle. Frankly, to make a very
Speaker 3: long story short, the state would not agree to not
Speaker 3: go forward, but to bring an end to this for everyone,
Speaker 3: the Harris family, Spurgeon family.
Speaker 1: The state was.
Speaker 3: Willing to accept what we call an Alfred please where
Speaker 3: a defendant pleads guilty but is still exerting his or
Speaker 3: her innocence, saying, I'm pleading guilty but because I believe
Speaker 3: it's in my best interest to do so, not because
Speaker 3: I'm legally admitting to doing what I'm accused of. And
Speaker 3: I think we all felt like because of all the
Speaker 3: shortcomings in the criminal justice system as they exist, the
Speaker 3: over reliance on this pediatrician who doesn't seem to understand science,
Speaker 3: I couldn't tell Stephanie there was no chance that a
Speaker 3: jury would convict her again. Stephanie wanted her life back,
Speaker 3: she wanted her family back, she wanted to be able
Speaker 3: to put her toes in the ocean, and so for
Speaker 3: everyone's sake, she agreed to enter this Alfred plea and
Speaker 3: bring resolution to the case.
Speaker 1: So look, no one could fall at you, Stephanie for
Speaker 1: making the decision that you made. People make it all
Speaker 1: the time. I can find a lot of faults in
Speaker 1: the state for dangling that sword over your head again.
Speaker 1: So when did you come home, Stephanie? And can you
Speaker 1: tell us what it was like walking out into the
Speaker 1: fresh air? Give us as much as you can.
Speaker 2: Well, it was definitely hot. I had an entourage if
Speaker 2: people out there along with Netflix. We're doing a series,
Speaker 2: so everybody was filming. I got in the car and
Speaker 2: the first thing they did was hand me a cell phone.
Speaker 2: I didn't know what to do with it. I think
Speaker 2: they were just so excited to finally give me some
Speaker 2: piece of technology. And I went to Wahwahs. My kids
Speaker 2: had always told me about Wahwahs. And when I walked in,
Speaker 2: it was just so overwhelming, all the lights and all
Speaker 2: the things to look at. And I know that probably
Speaker 2: sounds so silly, but when you've been trapped inside for
Speaker 2: so long, and I must look like I was from
Speaker 2: outer space because my eyes are staring at the lights,
Speaker 2: I'm sure my mouth was open. It was interesting. I
Speaker 2: allowed Netflix to come home with me and film me
Speaker 2: coming in and that was a really difficult thing to
Speaker 2: allow them to film me at my most weakest, vulnerable
Speaker 2: moment of happy tears. That I did allow it because
Speaker 2: I wanted to help bring more knowledge when the series finally.
Speaker 1: Does air, amen to that, and I think we all
Speaker 1: who work in this field for those happy moments. So Stephanie,
Speaker 1: you a top of all the other unspeakable treatment that
Speaker 1: you had to endure, you also, as you mentioned, had
Speaker 1: to spend a king's ransom, you know, to try to
Speaker 1: defend yourself hundreds of thousands of dollars. You weren't a
Speaker 1: rich person going into this. So we now have a
Speaker 1: bigger support system. Right over one hundred thousand people who
Speaker 1: are listening to your voice now. I'm sure many of
Speaker 1: them would like to do something to help you if
Speaker 1: they could. Is there some way for people to donate,
Speaker 1: or is there anything else that you could think of
Speaker 1: that they might be able to do.
Speaker 2: I have a GoFundMe and I would appreciate anything that
Speaker 2: anybody could do to help me get back on my feet.
Speaker 2: I've been home a year now and really haven't been
Speaker 2: able to build up a whole lot, so I would
Speaker 2: appreciate that. Thank you, Jason, Yes.
Speaker 1: And we will link to that in a bio of
Speaker 1: our episode. So please take a moment right now. If
Speaker 1: you're listening and you have something you can spare, please
Speaker 1: go to the link in the bio and donate, and
Speaker 1: we're going to join you in doing that and trying
Speaker 1: to help make this next period of your life a
Speaker 1: little bit less difficult. So now we turn to my
Speaker 1: favorite part of the show, and everyone who's a regular
Speaker 1: listener knows what to expect, and by that I mean
Speaker 1: closing arguments, and for anyone who's new to this, closing
Speaker 1: arguments works very simply. First, I once again think our
Speaker 1: incredible guests today, Alison Miller, attorney and candidate for State's
Speaker 1: Attorney in the State of Florida, Seth Miller, executive director
Speaker 1: of the Florida Innocence Project and personal hero of mine,
Speaker 1: and Stephanie Spurge 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 haven't maybe covered yet, or anything
Speaker 1: else you want to say. I'm just going to kick
Speaker 1: back in my chair. Let's start with Seth and Allison
Speaker 1: and then just hand the mic off to Stephanie and
Speaker 1: she'll take us out.
Speaker 4: So one of the things that I think about coming
Speaker 4: out of these cases and working on others now is
Speaker 4: how these things keep happening. We talked about it here,
Speaker 4: and I wonder what we can do to prevent them
Speaker 4: from happening in the future, and how we can end
Speaker 4: what is like a cottage industry of medical fabrication, and
Speaker 4: so that to me is the next step of this.
Speaker 4: We should continue to get people out of prison who
Speaker 4: are innocent, who put in prison for accidents or for
Speaker 4: things that have medical causes that weren't even crimes at all.
Speaker 4: This is the leading cause of wrongful conviction and women.
Speaker 4: We have to also think about how we can prevent
Speaker 4: it in the first place, and to be a change
Speaker 4: in the medical community. If medical doctors are still being
Speaker 4: trained every day in medical school to make the same
Speaker 4: mistakes that the medical doctors in this case and other
Speaker 4: cases have made, and to me, that's the next stage
Speaker 4: of how do we prevent this and really just eradicate
Speaker 4: this fabrication from the criminal legal system.
Speaker 3: Jason, I want to echo what you said, is that
Speaker 3: Seth and Stephanie especially are personal heroes of mine as well,
Speaker 3: and Stephanie is part of the reason why I am
Speaker 3: running for state attorney. If people like us don't do
Speaker 3: this type of work, then nothing will ever change. People
Speaker 3: have to be more involved in their local downbout elections,
Speaker 3: whether it's called the district attorney or the state attorney.
Speaker 3: We have to take ownership in what prosecution looks like
Speaker 3: in our jurisdictions, or this sort of thing will continue
Speaker 3: to perpetuate. And so, if elected state Attorney, I don't
Speaker 3: intend to prosecute child abuse cases based exclusively on the
Speaker 3: testimony of doctor Sally Smith. I've already enlisted people like
Speaker 3: Seth and Kate understanding we're going to have to continue
Speaker 3: prosecuting child abuse. Of course, everyone wants child abuse prosecuted,
Speaker 3: but we need to do it with reliable forensic evidence.
Speaker 3: And we have seen repeatedly in this jurisdiction at the
Speaker 3: very least, that this pediatric is a danger and everyone
Speaker 3: frankly seems willing to ignore it.
Speaker 1: Stephanie closing arguments, well, I would.
Speaker 2: Like to start by thanking Allison. I appreciate your confidence
Speaker 2: in me coming into this. I also, of course have
Speaker 2: to thank Seth the Florida Ennison's Project, Kate Judson from
Speaker 2: the Center of Integrity and Forensic Sciences, Josh Teffer from
Speaker 2: the Exoneration Project, all of their staff, the experts, and
Speaker 2: all the law students. Because it took an army to
Speaker 2: bring me home. And I'd also like to thank all
Speaker 2: the people who donate and support organizations like this, because
Speaker 2: if it wasn't for your support, people like me would
Speaker 2: still be trapped behind those prison gates. I'd like to
Speaker 2: urge law enforcement and medical staff to not assume abuse
Speaker 2: when they see a triad of injuries, to not race
Speaker 2: in emotionally charged and be more diligent. I hope that
Speaker 2: my story brings awareness to shaking baby syndrome and abuse
Speaker 2: and head trauma. I appreciate you allowing me to share
Speaker 2: my story for the first time today. Thank you Jason, Thank.
Speaker 1: You for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank
Speaker 1: our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Cliburn, and
Speaker 1: Kevin Wardis, with research by Lyla Robinson. The music in
Speaker 1: this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer
Speaker 1: Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on
Speaker 1: Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good.
Speaker 1: On all three platforms, you can also follow me on
Speaker 1: both TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason Flam. Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 1: is the production of Lava for Good podcasts and association
Speaker 1: with Signal Company Number one