Accused nurse must stay in jail

This comes from my post:
No mention of what references the parents had for hiring this nurse, and the reason why she was told not to give him any meds, makes me suspect that they had misgivings about her at the getgo. The newspaper article said she was licensed. Did anyone verify that, and whether there were dings in her record?

What makes you think she's a scapegoat? If so, who else might have administered the morphine?

The nurse hasn't had her day in court to say when she first noticed that the child wasn't breathing. The coroner said he'd received the overdose at 11 PM, and died soon after that, but nothing indicated evidence of an allergic reaction, which the parents claimed would happen. They also said they weren't informed of their child's change of condition, until the morning - 8 hours after the lethal injection of an overdose of a substance to which they knew their son was allergic.

This case badly needs a legal nurse consultant!

I have been following this case right along. This is the first article where it states the parents told the nurse NOT to give the child medications. Were there Dr's orders for night time meds?? If so, would that not get the Nurse in trouble for not following Dr's orders?? Seems to me the family story is changing a little piece at a time. What could they possible have against a Nurse that had NEVER been in thier home before and was taking care of thier son for the first time, and yet trust her enough to go to bed and leave the child to her care??

Add to that the fact that dispite the orders for the Nurse to Not give meds, the child dies?? Of an OD given after 11PM, (the Nurse wasn't on duty until after 12AM)?? Parents still look involved to me. JMO.

I too have given morphine to pts, does this automaticly mean that I am going to take it and give it to some other pt?? This Nurse is deffinately being railroaded!! I hope her Lawyer gets her the justice she needs so badly.

Next time that judge is in the hospital or has a loved one in the hospital and he is sitting in the room wondering "Why is this place so bussy, no one has time for us, why cant we get any help" I hope he remembers his stance on nurses that went through his courtroom.

well, i can promise you that if i had "misgivings" about a nurse caring for my child, that nurse would not be working at all for me.
it's not as if they truly needed a nurse.
rather, a nurse was hired so they could have uninterrupted sleep.

nah....
this just gets more suspect.
and while i know nothing about her lawyer, i'm thinking of a gazillion things he could be doing for her, yet he seems so passive.
i know i could be way off base here...
but geez, fight for your client, will you please????

leslie

Whether the nurse is guilty or not is irrelevant. Whether a judge has an opinion or not on the guilt of a suspect is irrelevant.

In cases where bail is allowed, the judge has final say over whether to grant it or not. The judge never has to grant bail unless specifically required to by law.

The suspect's presence is not necessary to build a case. That's the lawyer's responsibility and the lawyer can depose the nurse in jail.

Many judges hold opinions of guilt or innocence. It really doesn't matter. Their only job is to ensure that the proceedings run properly. In the case that they should do something improper there are ways a lawyer can have a judge recused from the case, have the case declared a mistrial or use the impropriety in an appeal.

Stanley,

You raise some valid points, but I still disagree. Big surprise there

At least 2 things work against the defendant by being kept in jail awaiting trial. One, she is not able to fully participate in her defense. Of course she can be deposed there, but that is a very tiny part of building a defense, especially in a medical case where the lawyer is not likely to be knowledgable about nursing care, standards of practice, policies and procedures, disease processes, etc. The defendant has demonstrated a minimal flight risk. Even if she were kept on house arrest, she would have access to telephones, computers, journals, textbooks, visits from co-workers to assist in developing a defense. None of that is available to her (to the same extent) from a jail cell.

Secondly, by being forced to remain in prison, she looks guilty to the general public which will make up the jury pool. And despite the burden of proof, we all know that perceptions matter. She has surendered her license and poses no threat to the public health and safety of Lancaster, PA, or anywhere else.

While I agree she should actively participate in her defense we have no right to be allowed to actively participate in our defense. Only to have a defense.

Secondly, the criteria for flight risk is bunk. Those with money are always considered minimal flight risks. Those on the poor end of the spectrum are always high. She's as much a risk as anyone else. Especially since she is charged with murder which tends to have higher amounts of flight than other charges.


'Looking guilty' means nothing. Heck, I've looked guilty before because of my skin. People may or may not look guilty. The court's responsibility is to ensure that the jury isn't biased AND to ensure that the verdict falls in line with the evidence. Which is why most jurisdictions allow the judge to throw out the jury's verdict if it deviates significantly from the evidence. (If the jury said not guilty when a video tape existed the judge could throw out the verdict and declare the person guilty or vice versa. This usually results in an automatic review by appellate court judges btu IS a valid action by a judge.)

As to posing no risk. She's suspected of murder. Whether she actually did it or not is irrelevant. It's a gamble and if she is a murderer she is a risk. The right to safety of the general public comes before the right to have bail for a defendant. Which is why most jurisdictions don't allow bail, or at least a HIGH bail, for murder charges.

Not knowing whether she is guilty or innocent means taking a huge gamble if you let her out. If she is innocent there is no danger. If she is guilty she COULD kill someone else. The judge has to make that choice based solely on evidence presented to him about the crime and the person.

Something that we all must remember is that we only know what the media chooses to report.

(That statement needs no further explanation.)

One thing about it (from the prior newspaper reports) -- this incident happened almost 6 years ago. The nurse never moved, never changed communities. She was active in her church and taught sunday school (I know it doesn't mean she's not an ax murderer). No wonder she surrendered her license, who would hire her with this hanging over her head? "oh, you're on bail for murdering a helpless child? Sure, come on in and look after grandma..." If she's innocent, I wouldn't blame her if she never did so much as hand a person a bandaid again....

If I were writing a novel, the parents would have been tired of being 'saddled' with a mentally and physically disabled child, got their hands on the morphine (perhaps left by a prior nurse) and waited for the night they got a 'newbie' to blame it on. And I don't know why, but I sure have the feeling that the family has money, and the nurse doesn't....