In a recent ruling that underscores the evolving nature of scientific knowledge, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided that the trial court should have conducted a hearing to scrutinize new scientific studies presented in the case of Kenneth Grad. Convicted in 2014 for injuries to his infant son, Grad has contended that these new studies could potentially have altered the outcome of his trial, according to the Court News Ohio.
Grad was sentenced to 24 years in prison following the discovery of 26 bone fractures in his 6-week-old son. Seven years after his conviction, he sought to introduce four new scientific studies which, he argues, could suggest alternative reasons for the fractures that a 2014 medical expert testified were caused by abuse. The state's Supreme Court has noted the trial court's failure to consider whether this could indeed constitute newly discovered evidence – evidence that Grad was required to show was not previously available to him to have been able to even think for his defense.
The court's recognition that science is a slow and iterative march toward truth has significant implications for past convictions based on earlier scientific understanding. Justice Jennifer Brunner's majority opinion stated via Court News Ohio, "scientific change may occur slowly, over long time periods and through measured, incremental advances in scientific knowledge." This stance was accompanied by the simplified analogy that scientific theories do not blossom fully but need time to be cultivated.
However, the dissenting voice came from Justice Joseph T. Deters, who held that these studies are not groundbreaking but build upon the same theories available during the initial trial. In his dissent, Justice Deters argued that Grad's motion repackaged existing expert opinions rather than introducing genuinely new evidence that would shift the scientific consensus. But the majority's perspective implies a willingness to reexamine the foundations upon which previous legal decisions were made, bringing hope to those whose lives may have been irrevocably changed by what we now perceive to be outdated or incomplete scientific understanding.
