Gwinnett DA should dismiss charges against Ga. father accused of killing son

Even if you have never followed the Danyel Smith case in Gwinnett County, it raises an important question: what should happen when a conviction rests heavily on medical conclusions that have since changed?

Smith, a Black man, has spent over 23 years in prison for the death of his 2-month-old son Chandler, based on a theory of “shaken baby syndrome.” His conviction and sentence have been vacated.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has, not once but twice, sent his case back for further review — both times unanimously.

In July, Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Kimberly Gallant granted him a new trial after considering medical and scientific evidence that was not presented to the original jury.

Prosecutors are given substantial discretion — and this extraordinary case shows that discretion can mean the difference between a life in prison or going home.

And, inexplicably, the Gwinnett County District Attorney’s Office has decided to appeal this most recent ruling, meaning that Mr. Smith could have to remain in the Gwinnett County jail until the appeal is resolved — and that, even if the appeal is denied, the district attorney will likely continue to pursue a conviction for Mr. Smith.

In doing so, the district attorney is choosing disputed science and, ultimately, injustice. The medical understanding of shaken baby syndrome has changed substantially.

The medical understanding of shaken baby syndrome has changed substantially: more than 40 people whose convictions involved a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis have been exonerated, according to a ProPublica report based on the National Registry of Exonerations.

New evidence could have changed the verdict

Marvin Lim, D-Norcross, is the Georgia state representative for House District 98 and an attorney. (Courtesy)

In this case, no one testified that they saw Smith shake or strike his son, and no physical evidence directly identified him as the person who harmed Chandler.

The case depended heavily on the medical interpretation of Chandler’s injuries, including a prosecution expert who concluded the infant had been shaken simply because he had not been given another explanation.

Smith’s attorneys have presented evidence that a preexisting injury led to a fatal seizure. They also presented a study suggesting that, even when the medical evidence is the same, examiners may be more likely to identify abuse when the child is Black rather than white.

In 2022, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that Smith had alleged facts that, if proven, could warrant relief. The court also recognized that new expert analysis of existing physical evidence may qualify as newly discovered evidence.

In this case, no one testified that they saw Smith shake or strike his son, and no physical evidence directly identified him as the person who harmed Chandler.

The case depended heavily on the medical interpretation of Chandler’s injuries, including a prosecution expert who concluded the infant had been shaken simply because he had not been given another explanation.

Smith’s attorneys have presented evidence that a preexisting injury led to a fatal seizure. They also presented a study suggesting that, even when the medical evidence is the same, examiners may be more likely to identify abuse when the child is Black rather than white.

In 2022, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that Smith had alleged facts that, if proven, could warrant relief. The court also recognized that new expert analysis of existing physical evidence may qualify as newly discovered evidence.

Danyel Smith, who was convicted of killing his son Chandler in 2002. (Contributed)

Judge Gallant later reviewed that evidence. She found the expert testimony reliable, relevant and admissible. Her order describes a change in the medical understanding that was part of the original case, moving away from a presumptive shaken-baby diagnosis toward an approach that also considers non-abusive causes.

Smith presented a non-abusive explanation for the child’s death supported by five medical specialists. Gallant found that the new evidence could give a reasonable juror reasonable doubt and would probably produce a different verdict.

Smith should not have to accept a guilty plea

Helen Smith, the mother of Danyel Smith, holds a sign during the "Justice for Danyel Smith" rally outside of the Gwinnett Justice Administration Center on Thursday, May 5, 2022. Smith, who in 2003 was convicted of shaking his baby to death. A request for a new trial is pending before the Georgia Supreme Court. (Miguel Martinez/AJC)

In 2023, the office offered Smith a plea agreement for time served. He rejected it because he would have had to plead guilty to killing his son — something he was not willing to do even if that meant immediate freedom instead of a life in prison.

A time-served offer means the office was prepared for Smith to leave prison. Before making that offer, the district attorney’s office had already determined that Smith could return to the community. Smith has no criminal history apart from the convictions that have now been vacated. And, according to his bond motion, Smith has also maintained a spotless disciplinary record during the more than two decades he has spent in prison.

The death of any person, let alone a child, is a grave matter. The district attorney has a duty to the family and to the community.

Danzel Smith, the son of Danyel Smith, gives a speech during the "Justice for Danyel Smith" rally outside the Gwinnett Justice Administration Center on Thursday, May 5, 2022. "It's been 20 years without birthdays, Christmas, and graduations without him, and I miss him," Smith said. (Miguel Martinez/AJC)

But dismissal would not require the district attorney to declare Smith innocent. It would instead require the office to decide that it will not prosecute him again. Instead, the district attorney has decided to appeal Judge Gallant’s ruling. Smith immediately filed a motion for bond pending appeal — because why should he have to remain in jail just because the district attorney decided to appeal, after a judge has already found a reasonable likelihood of acquittal on retrial?

Smith cannot get back the over 23 years he has already spent in prison. But he can still have a future without this prosecution hanging over him. At some point, enough is enough. I believe we have reached that point.