Prosecutors finished presenting their case against Shelley A. Richter Tuesday afternoon, and officials still expect the child endangerment case to go to the jury today for its deliberations.
Richter, now 44, is being tried on a charge that she endangered Lane Schaefer, a 7-month-old boy who suffered serious, permanent brain injuries on Aug. 19, 2010, while at Richter's home day care in Taos.
Four of the five doctors who testified as state's witnesses said Lane's injuries could have resulted only from his being shaken - not from a four-foot fall to a hard floor, as Richter claims.
Jurors in March 2013 convicted Richter of the endangerment charge, which is a felony, but found her not guilty of the more serious felony child abuse charge she also had faced.
Presiding Judge Pat Joyce ordered this week's retrial because a deputy's report of a second Child Abuse Hotline call 2½ months after the initial injuries wasn't turned over to lawyers for either side.
Defense Attorney Shane Farrow argued his case would have been different had he known that information.
Because she wasn't convicted of the abuse charge, the jury hearing evidence this week can decide only if she endangered Lane Schaefer's welfare.
In his opening statement Monday afternoon, Farrow told the jury that Richter had been babysitting for seven years at the time Lane was hurt - and that the injuries were the result of a really unfortunate accident, where she dropped Lane as she tripped over another toddler who had walked behind her.
But the four doctors who testified for the state Tuesday disagreed, saying the injuries weren't accidental.
Dr. Greg Downs, a pediatric intensive care physician at Columbia's University Hospital, testified: "From my experience, it seemed that Lane's injuries were caused by abusive head trauma," although he added: "I can't say (for sure) that's what happened."
However, he said, Lane's brain injuries were "too extensive" to have been caused by a fall from about four feet above the floor.
Dr. Nitin Patel, a University Hospital pediatric neurologist, said Lane suffered a "non-accidental injury."
Was the baby shaken? Assistant Prosecutor Aaron Maness asked. "Yes," Patel said.
Asked about other doctors' reports he'd reviewed, Patel told Farrow at least two physicians believed there had been a prior injury to Lane's brain.
Pediatric ophthalmologist Joseph Giangiacomo appeared in a video deposition recorded in January 2013 because he was dying from cancer.
He testified he had continued to check on Lane's condition after the 2010 incident, and that the boy had lost his sight and likely never would see again.
"I call the eye injuries non-accidental trauma; the absence of other causes of injury to the eye, like blunt trauma," he explained. "The fall is, to me, inadequate to cause (this much damage)."
Dr. Douglas Beal works part-time for Missouri's State Technical Assistance Team, which investigates cases of children's deaths or serious injuries at the request of local officials.
He reviews records rather than visiting with the patients involved in the cases - and told the court: "I'm confident what we saw was a shaking."
Farrow asked if the injuries couldn't have resulted from a fall.
"It's within the realm of possibility," but unlikely, he said - later telling Maness: "While it's possible we could have an ice storm followed by a tornado, it's not very likely."
Tuesday's last witness was Farrow's first in presenting evidence in Richter's defense - Dr. Norman Scott Litofsky, a University Hospital and MU Medical School neurological surgeon, who also appeared in a video recording rather than in person.
He had ordered a follow-up CAT scan in November 2010 - and found evidence of new bleeding that had not been shown on a Sept. 10 MRI.
Litofsky called it evidence of new injuries to Lane Schaefer's brain, not a continuation of the August injuries.
"To say they're related to same incident, I think, would be supposition," he told Maness during cross-examination.
He ordered a call be made to the state's Child Abuse Hotline - but there was no testimony Tuesday on what investigation, if any, followed that call.
The trial resumes at 8:45 this morning.