The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that a trial court should have conducted a hearing before denying Kenneth Grad's request to file a motion for a new trial. Grad, convicted in 2014 for child endangering and felonious assault, argued that the scientific understanding of bone fractures in infants has evolved since his conviction. His case involved his six-week-old son who was found with 26 bone fractures.
Grad presented four scientific studies published after his trial, suggesting they could constitute newly discovered evidence. According to court rules for criminal cases, defendants must demonstrate that such evidence is newly discovered.
Justice Jennifer Brunner noted in the Court’s lead opinion that scientific advancements can occur slowly over time. The court must compare new evidence with what was available at the original trial to determine if it would provide a stronger defense argument today.
“In doing so, [the court] must query whether, if the trial were to occur today, the new evidence would provide the defendant with a significantly stronger argument for his defense such that it could have the effect of leading to a different outcome,” Justice Brunner wrote.
If this condition is met, defendants are entitled to request permission for a new trial. The prosecution argued against considering Grad's evidence as new since it aligned with alternative theories known during the initial trial. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this stance.
“The problem with these approaches is that they assume that a flower blooms as soon as a seed is planted,” Justice Brunner stated. She cited changes in understanding conditions like shaken baby syndrome as examples of evolving scientific consensus.
Grad had also presented studies indicating potential genetic causes for infant bone fragility and vitamin D deficiencies affecting bone development—contradicting prior expert testimony at his trial which attributed injuries solely to abuse.
Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Melody Stewart supported Justice Brunner’s opinion while Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred only in judgment.
In dissent, Justice Joseph T. Deters contended that Grad's submitted studies did not qualify as new evidence but rather reiterated conclusions from pretrial expert reports without altering existing scientific consensus.
“Grad did not support his motion for leave to file a motion for new trial with new evidence,” concluded Justice Deters’ dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice R. Patrick DeWine.