The Mississippi Supreme Court, 7-2, denied relief in State v. Jeffrey Havard despite a real possibility, maybe even probability, that no murdered had occurred. Radley Balko at Reason Magazine notes:

Havard is on death row in Mississippi after being convicted of killing and sexually abusing his girlfriend’s infant daughter. The sexual abuse charge was essential to Havard’s murder conviction. The child died from a blow to the head. Havard says he dropped her while taking her out of the bathtub. The state argued he killed her. But because there were no witnesses or other evidence to support the murder charge, an odd twist in Mississippi law allowed them to argue that the sexual abuse was the underlying crime leading to the murder. I guess the thinking goes, if he sexually assaulted her, he must have killed her, too. I wrote a bit about Havard in my reason piece on Dr. Steven Hayne last October. Hayne’s testimony about finding evidence of sexual abuse was critical to Havard’s conviction.

Havard had asked the trial court for funds to hire his own expert to review Hayne’s autopsy. The court turned him down, ruling that Dr. Hayne, with his thousands of appearances in Mississippi’s courts, was sufficient. After Havard’s trial and conviction, Mississippi’s post-conviction relief office was able to get former Alabama state medical examiner Dr. Jim Lauridson to review Hayne’s work. Not surprisingly, Lauridson found it lacking.

Hayne and several hospital workers testified at trial that the baby’s anus was dilated, indicating sexual abuse. Lauridson reviewed Hayne’s autopsy report and photos, and concluded that the evidence wasn’t nearly conclusive enough to support Hayne’s testimony. The anus wasn’t torn or lacerated, and it can dilate naturally. Lauridson also noted that hospital staff had inserted a thermometer into the child’s rectum in the frenzy to revive her. Tests showed no trace of Havard’s DNA in or on the child.

On Havard’s first appeal, the state supreme court refused to even consider Lauridson’s testimony, arguing that it was new evidence that should have been introduced at trial—a nifty little Catch 22.

[more]