- posted: Jan. 23, 2026
In assault prosecutions, the victim is usually present to provide their version of how the defendant allegedly attacked them. However, cases where an infant or toddler was allegedly harmed when no one else but the defendant was around are trickier to prove. These proceedings often rely heavily on expert evidence from a doctor who opines on how the victim was hurt.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently reviewed two similar cases, State v. Nieves and State v. Cifelli, where fathers were accused of harming their young children. Prosecutors sought to introduce evidence that infants suffered from Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma (SBS/AHT). For both cases, the same doctor was retained to testify that the victims were victims of child abuse based on the so-called “triad” of symptoms—subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages and encephalopathy. Defendants sought to bar the witness, arguing that there was not widespread scientific acceptance for the idea that the triad of conditions could be caused by shaking alone.
When determining whether the testimony on SBS/AHT was admissible under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 702, the justices examined the history of the purported syndrome dating back to 1968. Applying New Jersey’s legal framework, the Court held the State did not carry its burden of clearly establishing general acceptance in the relevant scientific communities that the injuries in question could be caused without any impact to a child’s head.
It is important to remember that expert medical testimony can still be critical in many assault cases involving victims who are too young to speak comprehensibly about what supposedly occurred. However, the decision does rule out causation opinions that purport to identify shaking, to the exclusion of other causes, based only on the triad symptoms. Perhaps further medical and biomechanical research could trigger a review of that standard someday.
No matter the specific issue, if expert testimony is being used against you prosecutor, you need a defense lawyer who can challenge them effectively. They might have substandard qualifications or could be relying on a principle that lacks general acceptance.
The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell in New Brunswick has extensive experience fighting for New Jersey clients who are accused of criminal misconduct. My firm will review the facts thoroughly and find the flaws in the prosecution’s case, including expert testimony that fails the test set forth in the state’s Rules of Evidence. To discuss your legal options in a free consultation, please call 908-768-3837 or contact me online.
- posted: Jan. 23, 2026
In assault prosecutions, the victim is usually present to provide their version of how the defendant allegedly attacked them. However, cases where an infant or toddler was allegedly harmed when no one else but the defendant was around are trickier to prove. These proceedings often rely heavily on expert evidence from a doctor who opines on how the victim was hurt.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently reviewed two similar cases, State v. Nieves and State v. Cifelli, where fathers were accused of harming their young children. Prosecutors sought to introduce evidence that infants suffered from Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma (SBS/AHT). For both cases, the same doctor was retained to testify that the victims were victims of child abuse based on the so-called “triad” of symptoms—subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages and encephalopathy. Defendants sought to bar the witness, arguing that there was not widespread scientific acceptance for the idea that the triad of conditions could be caused by shaking alone.
When determining whether the testimony on SBS/AHT was admissible under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 702, the justices examined the history of the purported syndrome dating back to 1968. Applying New Jersey’s legal framework, the Court held the State did not carry its burden of clearly establishing general acceptance in the relevant scientific communities that the injuries in question could be caused without any impact to a child’s head.
It is important to remember that expert medical testimony can still be critical in many assault cases involving victims who are too young to speak comprehensibly about what supposedly occurred. However, the decision does rule out causation opinions that purport to identify shaking, to the exclusion of other causes, based only on the triad symptoms. Perhaps further medical and biomechanical research could trigger a review of that standard someday.
No matter the specific issue, if expert testimony is being used against you prosecutor, you need a defense lawyer who can challenge them effectively. They might have substandard qualifications or could be relying on a principle that lacks general acceptance.
The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell in New Brunswick has extensive experience fighting for New Jersey clients who are accused of criminal misconduct. My firm will review the facts thoroughly and find the flaws in the prosecution’s case, including expert testimony that fails the test set forth in the state’s Rules of Evidence. To discuss your legal options in a free consultation, please call 908-768-3837 or contact me online.
