Cause, Manner, and Timing Are Opinions
A medical examiner’s findings on the cause of death, the manner of death, and the timing of an injury are expert opinions, reached from limited information, and they can be wrong, overstated, or shaped by what investigators told the examiner before the examination ever began.
I began my career as an Assistant Public Defender in Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and I am one of only six attorneys in Florida, and just over a hundred in the country, recognized as a Forensic Lawyer-Scientist by the American Chemical Society. On the breath and blood chemistry I am trained in, I read the raw data myself. On DNA, fingerprints, cell-site, digital, and medical evidence, I bring in the right expert and cross-examine the State’s analyst on method, on chain of custody, and on the assumptions hiding inside the conclusion. Learn more about my background.
Contested Medical Diagnoses
Several medical conclusions that get presented to juries as settled are anything but. The diagnosis of abusive head trauma, once called shaken baby syndrome, has been seriously questioned within the medical community; the aging of bruises and other injuries is far less precise than it sounds; natural disease and accidental causes are sometimes recorded as something worse; and the interpretation of a sexual-assault examination can be presented as far more conclusive than the findings support.
How a Death Investigation Works
A medical examiner reaches conclusions from the scene information, the autopsy, microscopic tissue study, and toxicology, and then assigns both a cause of death, the injury or disease that ended life, and a manner of death, classified as natural, accident, suicide, homicide, or undetermined. Each of those is a judgment, and the manner of death in particular can turn on assumptions rather than on the body alone.
Because the examiner usually learns the investigators’ theory before the examination begins, that theory can color how ambiguous findings are read. This is a recognized form of context bias, and it is a fair subject for cross-examination, because the same findings can support more than one explanation.
Contested Diagnoses and Examination Findings
Several conclusions presented to juries as settled are truly disputed within medicine. The diagnosis once called shaken baby syndrome, now usually termed abusive head trauma, has been seriously questioned, and natural disease or an accidental fall can produce overlapping findings. The dating of bruises and injuries involves wide ranges rather than precise times. And in sexual-assault cases, examination findings are frequently nonspecific, so a normal or ambiguous exam neither confirms nor rules out an allegation, even though it can be presented as if it does.
In each of these areas I retain an independent forensic pathologist or the right specialist, obtain the underlying records and photographs rather than the summary, and hold the State’s opinion to the reliability the Daubert standard requires.
How I Challenge Medical and Autopsy Evidence
I retain an independent forensic pathologist or the right medical specialist, get the underlying records and photographs rather than the summary, and hold the State’s conclusions to the Daubert standard in section 90.702, where an opinion that outruns the science can be narrowed or excluded.
Why an Independent Review Matters
When a case turns on medical findings, a second qualified opinion is often the difference between a guilty verdict and a reasonable doubt. An independent forensic pathologist or specialist can examine the same autopsy, the same slides, and the same photographs and explain to the jury that the evidence fits an accident, a natural cause, or an innocent explanation just as well as the State’s theory.
Getting that expert involved early matters, because evidence and memories fade and because a clear alternative explanation, supported by a credentialed expert, changes how prosecutors value a case long before trial. This is some of the most important work a defense can do in a homicide or serious-injury case.
None of this is about denying that something terrible happened. It is about making sure the medical conclusion put in front of the jury is the right one and is held to honest limits, because in these cases an overstated or mistaken finding can cost a person years of their life. A careful, expert-backed second look at the cause, the manner, and the timing is the safeguard, and pressing for it is the heart of how I defend a case built on medical or autopsy evidence.
Common Questions
Can a medical examiner be wrong?
Yes. Cause, manner, and timing are opinions drawn from limited information, and a second qualified pathologist often reads the same findings differently.
Is the shaken baby diagnosis settled science?
No. The diagnosis now usually called abusive head trauma has been seriously questioned by parts of the medical and scientific community, and it is a frequent and proper subject of a Daubert challenge.
Can an injury be dated precisely?
Rarely as precisely as the State suggests. Aging bruises and injuries involves wide ranges and real uncertainty, which can matter a great deal to a timeline.
Do you bring in your own medical expert?
When the case turns on medical or autopsy findings, yes. An independent forensic pathologist or specialist is often what exposes the gap between the State’s conclusion and what the evidence really shows.
This page is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Florida applies the Daubert standard for expert testimony under section 90.702, Florida Statutes. The reliability of forensic evidence depends on the methods, the analysts, and the facts of each case, and the science and the law can change, so confirm anything here with counsel about your own situation. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
