Skip to main content

Maria Shepherd speaks to the media outside a disciplinary hearing for disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith in Toronto on Feb. 1., 2011.

Colin Perkel/THE CANADIAN PRESS

A woman implicated by disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith in the death of her three-year-old stepdaughter is set for exoneration more than two decades after pleading guilty to manslaughter, The Canadian Press has learned.

Documents filed ahead of a court hearing next week show the attorney general agrees Maria Shepherd's guilty plea and conviction should be struck and an acquittal entered.

"Had the appellant and her lawyer known then what they know now, the plea would not have been entered," the Crown says in its factum.

Story continues below advertisement

"More importantly, the fresh medical evidence shows that Dr. Smith's evidence, which formed the foundation of the guilty plea, was fundamentally flawed."

The Shepherd case was one of many suspicious child deaths in which Smith, a renowned and highly regarded Toronto-based forensic pathologist, had done the autopsy. However, a review of his work starting in November 2005 and subsequent public inquiry uncovered numerous examples in which he had made egregious errors.

After an initial review turned up problems with Smith's findings in the Shepherd case, the Ontario Court of Appeal in May 2009 allowed her to appeal her conviction.

Kasandra Shepherd, of Brampton, Ont., who had been through a period of health problems, began vomiting and became unresponsive on a day in April 1991. She died two days later in hospital.

Smith, who was stripped of his medical licence in 2011, identified an injury on the back of the child's head and concluded she had died from trauma due to at least one blow of "substantial or major or significant force." He also said Shepherd's watch likely caused bleeding on the inside of the girl's scalp.

Shepherd, then 21, told police she had pushed the child once, her wrist and watch making contact with the back of the girl's head. However, she also insisted she didn't believe the blow could have killed the girl.

"He was the Crown's star witness and his reputation preceded him," her trial lawyer Thomas Wiley says of Smith's opinion in a 2013 affidavit. "I found his opinion to be compelling, and seemingly unassailable."

Story continues below advertisement

However, after Wiley consulted an outside expert, who agreed Smith's theory was reasonable, Shepherd pleaded guilty to manslaughter in October 1992.

"I remember the first day of the preliminary hearing when Dr. Smith walked into court," Shepherd says in an affidavit in December 2015. "It was like a superhero entered the room."

She was sentenced to two years less a day and gave birth to her fourth child in custody.

While the guilty plea was valid at the time, the Crown now says the conviction should be set aside based on new forensic evidence. Experts have now concluded Smith's testimony at Shepherd's preliminary hearing contained a "number of significant errors." The best guessing is that Kasandra may have had a previous brain injury that caused seizures or that she suddenly developed a seizure disorder that led to her death.

Either way, they agree, her death should have been classified as "undetermined."

"All the experts (now) agree that Dr. Smith's watch theory was wrong," the Crown now admits. "It is in the interests of justice that the conviction be set aside and, in the circumstances of this case, an acquittal be entered."

Story continues below advertisement

The case also led to an obstruction-of-justice prosecution of Shepherd's family doctor, who had said bruises on the girl could have been the result of a blood disorder. That case was thrown out before trial.

Shepherd, who is still married to Kasandra's father, did not return calls seeking comment.

"I did not cause Kasandra's death, and my conviction for doing so has haunted me ever since," she says in her affidavit.

Her lawyer, James Lockyer, refused to discuss the case pending next week's hearing before the Court of Appeal.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter