Actual innocence injury to a child case

– Blizzard and Zimmerman Attorneys

Actual Innocence Proven

When a husband and wife sought our help, their lives had been turned upside down.

Both had pled guilty to charges of Injury to a Child.

One faced a state jail felony with three years of deferred adjudication, while the other faced a first-degree felony with five years of deferred adjudication. The accusations were severe, and the consequences were life-altering.

At the time, they believed pleading guilty was the best way to move forward and avoid the uncertainty of a lengthy trial. However, a critical discovery soon changed everything.

Injury case Innocence

Case Overview

After their guilty pleas, new medical information came to light. Their child was diagnosed with a brain injury, and their pediatrician raised the possibility of cerebral palsy. This diagnosis introduced a crucial question:

Was the child’s injury caused by abuse, or was it the result of a medical condition that the parents could not have foreseen or controlled?

The medical uncertainty was profound. No doctor could definitively determine whether the brain injury was pre-existing, contributed to, or caused the reported injury to the child.

The couple’s guilty pleas had been made without the benefit of this critical medical evaluation, leaving the full picture of what happened unexamined.

Faced with these revelations, we knew we had to act swiftly to prove their innocence.

Building the Path to Freedom

We filed two Article 11.072 writs of habeas corpus, which allow for the review of convictions during probation. Our argument was clear: the new medical evidence was enough to establish the couple’s innocence by clear and convincing evidence.

Here’s how we built their defense:

  • Presented New Medical Evidence: We submitted medical reports showing the possibility of a pre-existing brain injury or an undiagnosed condition like cerebral palsy.
  • Challenged the Basis of the Guilty Pleas: We demonstrated that their pleas were based on incomplete information and lacked critical medical insights.
  • Argued Innocence by Clear and Convincing Evidence: Using the new evidence, we asserted that no reasonable jury could convict the couple given the medical ambiguity.
  • Highlighted the Limits of Medical Certainty: We emphasized that no doctor could definitively determine whether the child’s injuries were caused intentionally or were the result of the brain injury. This raised significant doubt about the original abuse allegations and fundamentally undermined the case against the couple.

The Outcome

The State of Texas agreed.

After reviewing the new evidence and our legal arguments, the trial court declared both individuals actually innocent.

Their convictions were vacated, and the charges of Injury to a Child were dismissed entirely.

Even better, both cases are now set to be expunged, clearing their records and giving the family a fresh start.

Why This Case Matters

This case highlights the importance of revisiting convictions when new evidence emerges. Without the updated medical diagnosis and our team’s dedicated advocacy, an injustice might have gone unchallenged.

For families facing similar circumstances, this outcome is a powerful reminder of the critical role thorough investigation and evidence-based advocacy play in the legal system.

When lives and reputations are at stake, no detail is too small to examine.

How We Can Help

At Blizzard and Zimmerman Attorneys, we’re committed to more than just navigating legal procedures - we’re here to see the human side of every case.

If you or someone you know is facing wrongful allegations, contact us to discuss how we can help.

Your story matters, and we’re here to fight for the justice you deserve.

Disclaimer

Attorneys Jacob Blizzard, Sarah Durham, and Morgan Walker work tirelessly to achieve the greatest possible results for each of our clients and their families. This is just one of their successful results, settlements, and verdicts. Every case and client is unique and depends upon the individual facts and circumstances of each case. Clients may or may not obtain the same or similar results in each case.