He Was Exonerated of Killing His Infant, but the State Still Says He's Guilty
"Even after his 2021 exoneration, Baltimore County prosecutors have opposed Clarence receiving compensation for the injustice of being wrongfully convicted," says an attorney representing the man.
A Maryland man was exonerated in 2021 after serving nearly two decades in prison for the murder of his infant son. Now, he's attempting to get compensation for the 18 years he wrongfully spent imprisoned. However, the state is trying to stop him, arguing that he's still guilty—despite growing doubt in the medical diagnosis used to convict him.
According to The Daily Record, a Baltimore-based newspaper, Clarence Jones was imprisoned for second-degree murder following the death of his 9-week-old son Collin in 1998. According to Jones, he and Collin had been napping when he awoke to hear the infant aspirating formula, leading Jones to rush him to the hospital, where the baby became unresponsive and later died.
At the hospital, doctors found blood on the surface of Collin's brain and in his eyes and began suspecting that Collin's symptoms had been caused by "shaken baby syndrome," a medical condition that many doctors at the time believed was caused by a caregiver violently shaking a baby. The condition allegedly resulted in a "constellation of symptoms"—bleeding on the brain's surface, blood in the eyes, and brain swelling or a loss of consciousness—which matched Collin's condition. Doctors contacted the police, suspecting Collin died from abuse by Jones. Just minutes after Collin's death, police arrested Jones at the hospital.
"I was paralyzed," Jones told The Daily Record about his arrest. "My legs almost went out from beneath me and my brain just froze."
Despite Jones protesting that he was innocent, he was convicted of his son's murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison, after a trial where the prosecution relied heavily on expert witnesses who claimed that nothing other than violent shaking could have caused Collin's death. According to The Daily Record, one expert witness did testify in Jones' defense, noting that Collin's litany of other health issues—like lingering pneumonia symptoms and head trauma from birth—made it too difficult to determine the cause of this death.
"I'm troubled with the flat-out statement it had to be shaken baby syndrome and nothing else," pathologist Rudiger Breitinger said on Jones' behalf during the trial. "I don't think we have enough proof of that."
When Jones was released on parole in 2017, the medical consensus around shaken baby syndrome had changed dramatically. What was once a near-universally accepted diagnosis was now deeply controversial, with much of the research justifying the label having since come into question.
"Where the near-unanimous opinion once held that the SBS triad of symptoms could only result from a shaking with the force equivalent of a fall from a three-story to four-story window, or a car moving at 25 mph to 40 mph (depending on the source), research completed in 2003 using lifelike infant dolls suggested that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall," wrote Radley Balko in a 2009 summary of new findings in Reason. "Furthermore, the shaking experiments failed to produce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS deaths."
So far, at least 26 people convicted of shaken baby syndrome–related crimes have been exonerated. In 2021, Jones became one more among them, after a panel of judges on the Maryland Court of Special Appeals granted him a writ of actual innocence. Jones had already been released from prison in 2017, but the exoneration was still a tremendous victory—he was no longer subject to parole, and he was no longer a convicted murderer.
"Since 1999, scientific and medical literature has identified other natural causes of retinal hemorrhages and other eye findings as seen in Collin," the court wrote. "Because Collin's medical conditions were quickly dismissed as potential causes of the constellation of symptoms that Collin presented, such evidence would be especially important when there is a history of illness, hospitalization, and an absence of external injuries."
Under Maryland law, exonerees are eligible for compensation under state law. According to The Daily Record, Jones is eligible for around $1.6 million, though he faces an uphill legal battle to obtain compensation. Despite his writ of actual innocence, the state of Maryland contends that Jones cannot provide the "clear and convincing evidence" required for compensation and that"he did in fact murder his child."
"Even after his 2021 exoneration, Baltimore County prosecutors have opposed Clarence receiving compensation for the injustice of being wrongfully convicted," Lauren J. Kelleher, an attorney representing Jones, told The Daily Record. "Instead of trying to mitigate the difficulties he endures and will continue to endure for the rest of his life, they have decided to wrongly re-prosecute him for the tragic death of his own son."
As Jones tries to obtain compensation for his time spent unjustly behind bars, the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome continues to come under scrutiny. In 2022, one New Jersey judge declared the label "junk science" and barred testimony from shaken baby syndrome–experts in one case involving an allegation that an infant became severely injured due to shaking.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s interesting that we have two stores of prosecutorial misconduct here on Reason today. In one, they condemn (rightly) the overzealous prosecutor. In the other, they seem giddy that the prosecutor is overzealous.
I don’t see anything “overzealous” about the original prosecution. Multiple medical experts stated unambiguously that he was guilty. They were wrong, but that’s not the prosecutor’s fault.
He should be able to sue the medical experts who testified against him if they were guilty of professional misconduct.
Otherwise, this is a case of bad luck, not of a wrongful conviction. As a matter of public policy, our legal system may still want to give compensation in cases like this, but that’s different from compensation for a wrongful conviction.
He got a “writ of actual innocence” – what would a wrongful conviction look like, if not like this?
What I’m saying is you are legally responsible for harm you cause to others if you caused the harm intentionally or if you caused the harm negligently. You are not responsible if neither of those apply. We should look at the legal system the same way.
In this case, I see neither intentional harm nor negligence on the part of the legal system, the legislators, the prosecutor, the judge, or the jury. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people with nobody at fault.
I still think he should get financial support from the government, but that should be viewed as aid, not as compensation for an error in the legal system.
The prosecutor lined up the expert witnesses and chose to use them as part of his case. That shows complicity. Prosecutors should be responsible for everything they present, whether directly or through a witness they call.
At least one other expert said something different. Prosecutors use who will get convictions. That is all that matters to them. Not justice. Not innocence. Not right over wrong. The system is as corrupt as any.
There’s an awful lot of sophistry scattered among the various comments above and below.
No reasonable person is saying that in this case the state acted in bad faith or with malevolence. No reasonable person is saying the expert witnesses knowingly testified to untruths, as it seems they were rendering opinions based on the state of knowledge at the time they were testifying. And no reasonable person can believably allege that the jury should have found otherwise than guilty according to the state of knowledge, and the evidence presented at trial.
But in spite of all good intentions and lack of bad intent, I also think no reasonable person can deny that Clarence Jones was injured. He was deprived of 18 years of his life, which cannot be returned. He was further deprived of 18 years of earnings. While there may be no individual tortfeasor who should be sued for redress, these actions were taken “on behalf of society”. The wronged individual should receive recompense for the time he spent in prison for an act he did not commit, and in addition he should be made whole for 18 years of earnings or imputed earnings of which he was deprived. As the actions that caused his loss were taken “on behalf of society” (the county, or perhaps the state), it is reasonable to look to that society now to make him whole for what they deprived him of, whether they be considered “tortfeasors”, or just in his debt. Simply releasing him from jail with the salutation “Sucks to be you, doesn’t it?” is not the action of a just society.
To attempt to deny that obligation or repudiate that debt is not an honorable course of action; releasing him from jail with the salutation above is not an action I’d wish to own. A D.A. that would oppose making him whole is an example of the worst that one often sees in “servants of the public”.
The Science changed. Amnesty.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Jones (the father) was (is) black, for those too lazy to check the link. Parenting while black is now worth 20 years in jail, and conservaturd BASTARDS make jokes about it! NOTHING can be cruel enough to satiate the punishment boners of hateful and racist assholes!!!
Do NOT pay attention to severely abused blacks folks, ’cause they vote for Demon-Craps anyway!!! AND HOW ABOUT THAT THEM THAR POOR ABUSED TRUMPY-POOOO, ANYWAY!?!??!
Paint some blackface on Poor Abused Trumpy-Pooo, and put Him in jail for 20 years on TRUMPed up charges for imaginary violations of The Science, and His black-face paint will THEN make it all OK!!!
There, problems fixed!!! Ye may thank me later!
Crack is whack
wack
In 2022, one New Jersey judge declared the label “junk science”
I’ll say it again. When they adopted the Daubert standard for expert witness testimony it was believed judges were going to allow expert experts to have the last word on evidence. There were those who warned that judges were no more knowledgeable than the average monkey and therefore were in no position to assess the expertality of these expert experts. The result of this was going to be that judges were just going to throw up their hands and admit any conman with a set of jingly keys the right to testify as an expert witness. Which is where we got this whole body of forensic science that’s as larded with bullshit as Chris Christie on a Krispy Kreme bender. It’s all junk science but thanks to crime shows like CSI people believe investigators are magical wizards who can look at a broken shoelace and identify a murderer from halfway around the world. Usually by enhancing an 8-bit picture on a surveillance video until they can see a reflection in the dead man’s glasses of the killers fingerprints.
Juries are the ultimate judges of the “expertality of experts”. They don’t have to follow the expert opinion if they don’t believe the expert is knowledgeable. So, judges eliminate some experts under Daubert, and juries then decide which of the admitted experts they actually believe.
I mean, if you think that juries are too stupid to decide between different and conflicting expert opinions, why trust juries with decision making at all?
What kind of system would you actually like?
Jurors are no more educated than the judge on “expertality of experts”. But they do love putting people in prison.
Then explain why any prospective juror with any common sense is rejected from serving on a Jury. Twice I’ve been called for Jury Duty only to be dismissed when I’m asked what I do for a living. I’m a mechanical engineer.
Seriously, this guy needs a better attorney.
He wasn’t charged with an FEC vilolation, but Bragg said he was guilty anyway…
Yep. The thing that raises this to a felony is the intent to use it to further another crime. There is no “other crime”.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…
.
Read all about it here…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
I’m going to say that given that we’re reading this in Reason, it’s very likely that the people behind the research being used to let murderers out are the same people who insist that it’s a scientific fact that biological sex is a social construct.
“Hey, doc, what’s a woman?”
Doctor looks flustered, ” Well, I’m not a biologist, I really can’t say….”
“No, you’re not a biologist, you’re a gynecologist and you should know better”
What is it with these people? Do they just want people to suffer? I’ve seen that kind of conduct from next of kin to murder victims. they just want someone to pay– whether guilty or not. Just someone to suffer for their loss. A bunch of immoral slaves to their emotions.
And how is reimbursing your lawyer for expenses the lawyer paid in execution of a legal agreement not a legal expense and a misdemeanor? What is the crime used to commit a further crime?