Court Asked to Set Aside Au Pair Ruling by Judge

The legal fate of British au pair Louise Woodward was handed to the state’s highest court Monday, as defense and prosecution attorneys alike argued that her manslaughter conviction in the death of 8-month-old Matthew Eappen should be set aside.

In the brief, contentious hearing before the Supreme Judicial Court, prosecutors urged the seven-member panel to restore the murder verdict delivered last October by a jury. Woodward was found guilty of causing fatal brain injury when she shook Matthew on Feb. 4, 1997, slamming his head against a hard surface so forcefully that his skull was fractured.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Sabita Singh argued Monday that Superior Court Judge Hiller B. Zobel erred when he exercised judicial authority to reduce the conviction to manslaughter, freeing the 20-year-old baby-sitter on time served--279 days. An unusual provision in Massachusetts allows a judge to modify a jury’s action, Singh conceded.

“But there is one thing that it does not allow him to do, and that is to substitute his judgment for that of the jury,” she said.

Defense lawyers were equally insistent, asserting that the prosecution suppressed crucial medical evidence that would have exonerated their client. Woodward’s attorneys say they now have scientific proof that the child’s fatal injuries could have predated the episode in February 1997.

If samples of Matthew’s skull fracture had been provided to the defense, “we could have ended this case before it started,” attorney Andrew Good told the court. “We could have proven that this was an old injury.”

The Supreme Judicial Court is an appellate body that functions much like the U.S. Supreme Court, peppering attorneys with questions and engaging in Socratic dialogue as each side presents a 25-minute oral argument. The court has 130 days in which to issue its decision and is not required to confine itself to requests made by attorneys in the case.

Depending on this court’s ruling, Woodward could return to her home in Elton, England, as a free woman, her name cleared. Or she could be sent back to prison in this country, a prospect defense attorney Barry Scheck has said fills Woodward with terror.

A third option would be for the court to call for a new trial. In that event, defense attorneys say they will have the baby’s body exhumed to gain additional skull samples. While stressing that “there was nothing wrong with the first trial,” prosecutor Singh said her side was fully prepared for a new trial.

Although an active participant in last fall’s trial, Scheck was curiously silent on Monday. Boston legal analyst Tom Hoopes suggested the defense followed this strategy in hopes of counteracting the so-called “Scheck effect,” where jurors and perhaps even judges view the well-known litigator in light of his involvement in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

But Woodward herself created a stir as she arrived late for the hearing. Outside the downtown courthouse, a sea of journalists from around the world parted as she emerged from her attorney’s car. Supporters who had braved bitter cold rains cheered as Woodward and her parents entered the building.

Sporting a new hairstyle that made her look less like the vulnerable young foreigner who sat through last fall’s trial, Woodward listened attentively as both sides argued her destiny. Since Zobel’s decision, Woodward has been living with one of her attorneys in Marblehead, north of Boston, spending her days at the gym or in front of the television.

Sunil and Deborah Eappen, who hired Woodward to care for Matthew and his older brother, Brendan, were not present for Monday’s hearing.