New Jersey Supreme Court Rejects “Shaken Baby Syndrome” Testimony Based on Shaking Alone
In a major legal and scientific development, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that expert testimony claiming a baby was injured solely by “shaking” is not reliable enough to be presented to a jury.
The decision came in two consolidated criminal cases, State v. Nieves and State v. Cifelli, where prosecutors sought to introduce medical testimony that the only possible explanation for the children’s brain injuries was abusive shaking by their caregivers.
The Court disagreed.
What Is Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS/AHT)?
For decades, some doctors have diagnosed “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (now often called Abusive Head Trauma or AHT) based on a group of symptoms sometimes referred to as the “triad”:
Subdural bleeding (bleeding around the brain)
Retinal hemorrhages (bleeding in the eyes)
Encephalopathy (brain dysfunction)
In many cases, doctors testified that these findings meant a caregiver must have violently shaken the child.
The Court’s Key Finding: The Science Isn’t Settled
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the State failed to prove that shaking alone—without impact—can reliably cause these injuries.
Under New Jersey’s evidence rules, expert testimony must be based on science that is generally accepted in the relevant scientific communities. Here, that included:
The medical community
The biomechanical engineering community (which studies forces, motion, and physical injury)
While many doctors support the SBS/AHT diagnosis, the Court found that biomechanical experts do not agree that human shaking can generate enough force to cause the claimed injuries without an impact to the head.
Because the State could not show general acceptance in both communities, the expert testimony was excluded.
The Origins of the Theory Were Weak
The Court reviewed the history of SBS/AHT and noted that:
Early theories were based on car accident whiplash studies involving monkeys, not infants.
Key doctors who promoted the theory did not conduct biomechanical experiments on infant shaking.
Later studies showed shaking alone does not produce the necessary force to cause the injuries typically seen in SBS/AHT cases.
Even the original researchers later questioned whether their work was being misused to support SBS/AHT diagnoses.
The Court Did NOT Say Child Abuse Doesn’t Exist
Importantly, the Court made clear:
Child abuse is real and serious.
If there is physical evidence of impact, admissions, or other proof of abuse, that evidence can still be presented to a jury.
The ruling only limits testimony that claims shaking alone caused the injuries without reliable scientific support.
Why This Matters
This decision protects defendants from being convicted based on unproven medical theories. It reinforces the principle that: Courts must act as gatekeepers to ensure expert testimony is scientifically reliable before it is shown to jurors.
The ruling also opens the door for parents and caregivers who were previously accused based solely on SBS/AHT diagnoses to challenge those cases.
Your Family, Your Future, Your Defense
If you or someone you love is facing accusations based on a Shaken Baby Syndrome or Abusive Head Trauma diagnosis, you need a defense that understands both the law and the science.
At Vining Legal, we challenge unreliable medical assumptions, demand real evidence, and fight to protect families from wrongful accusations.
