NEWS
Law students take on case
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Courtney Johnson:
- Construction pops up on State Street this spring (November 6, 2007)
- Woods ahead in fundraising race (March 28, 2007)
- E-mail sparks privacy concern (October 9, 2007)
- Big Ten Network reaches deal with UW housing (August 31, 2007)
- City agency to run Halloween entertainment (May 10, 2007)
Related Stories:
- UW Innocence Project client hits legal roadblock (March 30, 2007)
- Innocence Project to help woman convicted of murder (February 23, 2007)
- Ochoa represents strong WIP success (February 27, 2006)
- Innocence Project frees Eau Claire man (May 2, 2005)
- Judge chooses not to hear appeal propelled by Wisconsin Law School (November 14, 2003)
by Courtney Johnson
Monday, January 29, 2007
A Waunakee woman may receive a new trial more than 10 years after being convicted of first-degree reckless homicide in the death of an infant.
The University of Wisconsin Law School's Innocence Project is trying to get babysitter Audrey Edmunds a new trial after the latest medical evidence could prove her innocence. Edmunds was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1996 for the death of 7-month-old Natalie Beard, for whom she babysat.
According to court documents, medical experts such as Dr. Robert Huntington III testified Natalie's death was due to "a cerebral hemorrhage probably caused by violent shaking or hitting within the preceding 24 hours."
But UW law professor Keith Findley, who co-directs the Innocence Project, said new testimony by those same medical experts now suggests her death could have been caused by other factors.
"[Huntington] was very uncomfortable with the testimony he offered at trial," Findley said. "[H]e was no longer confident he could say when the child's injuries were inflicted, when he had previously testified that the injuries were inflicted when the child was in Audrey Edmunds' care."
The Innocence Project is composed of attorney-supervised UW law students, and gives free legal assistance to prison inmates who believe they can prove they were wrongly convicted. The project works in conjunction with the Frank J. Remington Center, another Law School program that gives students the opportunity to receive real-world legal experience by representing jailed persons.
"The key to remember is if the UW Law School and the Remington Center were not taking the lead in this, it might not be done, so it's a perfect example of a win-win," said Charles Schudson, a lecturer at the Law School and a judge for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Beards' parents and Edmunds testified Natalie appeared normal and alert the morning she was dropped off at the babysitter's home. At the time of the trial, it was believed the effects of "shaken baby syndrome" were visible within a couple hours of the trauma.
But according to Findley, Huntington testified Jan. 26 that the infant's lucid interval after experiencing the head trauma can last for up to three days — creating serious doubt as to whether Natalie had been injured days earlier by someone other than Edmunds.
"I think we are seeing courts looking more carefully at these kinds of cases, just as the medical community is starting to re-evaluate these cases," Findley said.
Since her conviction, Edmunds has maintained that she is innocent of this crime. During her trial she claimed Natalie's injuries likely occurred the night before when left alone for 45 minutes with her father, who she said had migraine headaches and was bothered by the infant's frequent crying, according to court documents.
The Innocence Project usually takes on cases where new physical evidence, such as blood or hair, is discovered that might point to the inmate's innocence. The project only takes cases where a person has been convicted and exhausted all appeals.
Anonymous (March 9, 2007 @ 10:29pm):
I left my child in Audrey's care 12 years ago and I would do it again. There is no way she was ever guilty of the charges. No one who knows Audrey personally believes she could have been abusive enough with a baby to have harmed it in any way. I watched her with her two older girls and marveled at her patience. I pray often for justice in this case.
Anonymous (April 10, 2007 @ 5:35am):
I was troubled at the time and still am that the judge tried to get Audrey to confess and receive a much shorter sentence. That seems unethical to me and probably indicative that he was not necessarily sure that she in fact was guilty. I think it probable that this is another case where someone who has had it rough in life and feels less than confident in the legal system, could be perceived as shaky under cross examination. And thinking someone is guilty is as good as knowing someone is guilty in our current system.
Debbie Rakes (April 28, 2007 @ 7:27pm):
I hope they get new evidence,for I feel their is something wrong with this case.Does anyone know if the baby parents were investigated? I have a feeling the parents are not telling all.
Anonymous (February 6, 2008 @ 6:31pm):
Audrey Edmunds is guilty as charged. Her case was thrown out because...
...a politically-connected law school took up her cause...
...she's a woman. Women commit around 40% of homicides, are actually charged in about 15% of cases (women who toss their babies from windows or smash their brains out against a wall are routinely charged with "reckless endangerment" but not murder), are convicted in about 2% of cases, rarely do serious time, and are very rarely executed...
...the courts are under pressure to release more criminals, because of the cost of incarceration...
This article is biased, misleading, and fails to disclose damning evidence in the case. There is ZERO doubt as to who murdered Natalie Beard. Furthermore, both the author of this smear piece, and several commenters, are committing libel against the parents.
Blaming the father is a typical ploy. The media tried it with Elizabeth Ott's ex-husband--he's the one who found the baby after she microwaved it. They also smeared Matthew Winkler after his wife murdered him--failing to disclose that she did it to cover up bank fraud that she had committed, and that her own daughter in sworn testimony contradicted her tall tales of abuse. No pornography was ever found. It was all fabricated to smear the victim.
"There is an innocence in lying which is the sign of good faith in a cause"--Friedrich Nietszche
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 4:09pm):
My Granddaughter was a victim of shaken baby and nearly died last year. She had a brain bleed with bleeding behind both retinas along with bruises on her body and a broken rib. The injuries happened on a friday, but she did not suffer her seizure until Sunday. The evidence in this case needs to be looked at again.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
