The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously ruled October 15, 2025, that expert testimony based on evolving scientific understanding can constitute newly discovered evidence justifying a new trial—even when analyzing the same physical evidence presented at the original trial. The landmark decision in Smith v. State (S25A0548) vacated a lower court’s denial of Danyel Smith’s extraordinary motion for new trial and ordered reconsideration under the proper legal framework.
This represents Georgia’s highest court correcting trial courts twice in three years on the same case, signaling serious judicial concern about how evolving forensic science claims are being evaluated. For prisoners convicted on shaken baby syndrome diagnoses, bite mark analysis, outdated arson science, or other subsequently discredited forensic methods, the ruling provides a critical roadmap—though not a guarantee—for challenging their convictions.
The Legal Framework Lower Courts Must Now Follow
The Georgia Supreme Court identified multiple fundamental legal errors committed by Gwinnett Superior Court when it denied Smith’s motion in September 2024. Understanding these errors is essential for prisoners and advocates preparing similar challenges.
Error One: Categorically Excluding Expert Opinion as New Evidence
The trial court ruled that expert reanalysis of existing medical records could never constitute “newly discovered evidence” for purposes of an extraordinary motion. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this categorical exclusion. Expert opinion testimony is expressly recognized as “evidence” under Georgia law (O.C.G.A. §§ 24-7-701, 24-7-702, 24-7-703). When experts apply new scientific understanding to existing physical evidence and reach different conclusions, this can qualify as newly discovered evidence.
Error Two: Misapplying the Due Diligence Standard
The lower court appeared to fault Smith for not discovering evidence earlier, noting some scientific developments occurred as early as 2006-2012. The Supreme Court corrected this misunderstanding. The proper inquiry asks whether the defendant acted without unreasonable delay after the scientific evidence became sufficiently established to constitute reliable evidence. For Smith’s case, his attorneys cited a 2018 consensus statement as crystallizing the change in scientific understanding. The due diligence clock starts when such consensus emerges, not when the first questioning studies were published.
Error Three: Applying Wrong Materiality Test
The trial court found that new medical knowledge made it “more certain” the victim died from abuse, effectively weighing evidence to reaffirm the conviction. This reversed the proper legal standard. The correct inquiry under the Timberlake test asks: Would this new evidence probably produce a different verdict—meaning, would it create reasonable doubt?
Error Four: Failing to Properly Evaluate Expert Reliability
Rather than applying appropriate evidentiary standards for expert testimony, the lower court summarily dismissed defense experts as unreliable. The Supreme Court mandated proper analysis using Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards, examining whether the theory or technique can be tested, peer review and publication, error rates, scientific acceptance, and expert qualifications.
The Correct Legal Standards for Extraordinary Motions
Georgia’s framework for extraordinary motions for new trial derives from O.C.G.A. § 5-5-41 and the six-part Timberlake v. State test. Following the Smith ruling, courts must apply this framework properly:
The Six Timberlake Requirements
- Newly Discovered: Evidence came to movant’s knowledge since trial. After Smith, this expressly includes expert opinion based on evolved scientific understanding.
- Due Diligence: The delay in acquiring evidence was not due to lack of diligence. Evaluate from when scientific consensus changed, not when defendant could have theoretically anticipated future developments.
- Material: Evidence is so material it would probably produce a different verdict. This means creating reasonable doubt, not making conviction “less certain.”
- Not Cumulative: Evidence provides new information, not merely additional support for theories already presented.
- Affidavit Attached: Witness affidavits must be attached or their absence explained.
- Not Merely Impeaching: Evidence must relate to substantive facts, not just witness credibility.
What Smith Adds to Timberlake
The Smith decisions (2022 and 2025) establish several critical clarifications:
When motion alleges facts that “if proven, may warrant relief,” an evidentiary hearing is required. Courts cannot dismiss extraordinary motions based on new scientific evidence without holding hearings where experts testify and can be cross-examined.
Expert reanalysis constitutes new evidence when medical or scientific understanding has substantially evolved since trial, current expert opinion contradicts trial-era expert testimony, and the evolution is documented through peer-reviewed literature and consensus statements.
Who Has the Strongest Cases Under Smith
The Smith ruling opens doors most clearly for prisoners convicted based on forensic science that has substantially evolved or been discredited since trial:
Shaken baby syndrome / abusive head trauma cases: Since 2019, approximately two dozen such convictions have been overturned nationwide. Medical understanding of infant brain injuries has evolved dramatically, with current science recognizing that short falls, birth complications, seizures, and numerous medical conditions can produce symptoms once considered “diagnostic” of abuse.
Bite mark analysis: Courts increasingly recognize bite mark comparison lacks scientific validity. Georgia cases have been overturned on this basis, including Sheila Denton’s conviction (2020).
Outdated arson science: Fire investigation methods from the 1980s-90s have been substantially revised. Patterns once thought to prove arson are now understood as normal fire behavior.
Hair microscopy: FBI admitted in 2015 that hair comparison testimony was scientifically invalid in vast majority of cases where it was used.
Blood spatter analysis: Earlier methodological approaches lacked rigorous scientific foundation; understanding has evolved substantially.
The Extraordinary Motion Filing Process
Prisoners must file extraordinary motions in the original trial court. Georgia law permits only one extraordinary motion per case, making proper preparation essential.
Critical Procedural Requirements
The motion must be verified (sworn statement by the defendant) and provide 20 days’ notice to the District Attorney. It must attach detailed expert affidavits from qualified specialists. The motion must state specific facts showing how each Timberlake requirement is satisfied—conclusory allegations will result in denial.
Essential Components
A verified statement from the defendant explaining when new evidence was discovered and why they are innocent. Multiple expert affidavits (Smith had eight medical experts) including qualifications, case review, and explanation of how scientific understanding has evolved. Supporting scientific literature including peer-reviewed studies and consensus statements. A legal memorandum citing Smith v. State, Timberlake v. State, and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards.
The motion must specifically address what makes evidence “newly discovered,” how due diligence was exercised, why evidence would probably create reasonable doubt, and why evidence is not merely cumulative.
Common Pitfalls
Failing to attach expert affidavits, making conclusory allegations without specific facts, missing the 20-day notice requirement, or raising trial errors that should have been raised on direct appeal will result in denial. Vague assertions about why a verdict would change without specific analysis or failing to explain the scientific evolution with documentation are fatal errors.
The Evidence Threshold
The materiality standard requires demonstrating that if jurors heard all the trial evidence plus the new scientific evidence, they would likely have reasonable doubt. This typically requires:
Multiple credible experts (Smith had eight), not just one expert offering an alternative theory. Experts from respected institutions with strong credentials in the relevant specialty. Peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting the experts’ positions. Consensus statements from professional organizations showing scientific understanding has changed. Ideally, recantations or revisions from prosecution’s original experts (in Smith’s case, the State’s medical examiner reversed his 2003 testimony).
The Role of Smith’s Attorneys
The Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR), a nonprofit public interest law firm in Atlanta, represented Smith throughout his post-conviction proceedings. Lead counsel Mark Loudon-Brown, Senior Attorney in SCHR’s Capital Litigation Unit, brought expertise in challenging forensic science evidence, including successfully overturning Sheila Denton’s Georgia conviction based on bite mark evidence (2020).
Building the Scientific Case
SCHR assembled eight medical experts for the April 2024 evidentiary hearing. Dr. Saadi Ghatan, Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Mount Sinai Health System, served as lead expert, stating unequivocally: “This looks nothing like someone who was abused. It looks like somebody who had hypoxic-ischemic brain damage.”
The expert team included three pathologists, a pediatric radiologist, and Professor Keith Findley from University of Wisconsin Law School, who spent over two hours explaining the history of shaken baby syndrome, calling it “theory rather than science.”
SCHR presented a comprehensive alternative explanation: Chandler was born premature via C-section with vacuum extraction, likely causing a skull fracture. Death resulted from hypoxic-ischemic brain damage from respiratory arrest caused by a natural disease process, likely a seizure—not from abuse.
National Support
SCHR coordinated an impressive amicus brief coalition including the Innocence Network, Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, 48 law professors and forensic science experts, and six medical specialists. This demonstrated the national significance of Smith’s case.
No Systematic Review in Georgia
One critical gap: Georgia has no legal duty to identify and review similar cases after the Smith ruling. The state lacks conviction integrity unit requirements for district attorneys. No statute requires review when scientific understanding evolves. Each prisoner must individually identify that their conviction may be affected, research the law, gather expert evidence, and file properly documented motions.
The Gwinnett County District Attorney’s response demonstrates prosecutorial resistance. Despite eight expert witnesses contradicting the conviction and the State’s medical examiner reversing his testimony, the DA continues defending Smith’s conviction. In 2022-2023, prosecutors offered a plea deal requiring Smith to admit guilt for release—Smith refused, choosing to remain imprisoned rather than falsely confess.
How Many Prisoners Are Affected
Determining the number of Georgia prisoners potentially affected is difficult because Georgia maintains no centralized database of convictions by forensic science type. National data shows approximately 1,600 shaken baby syndrome convictions since 2001, with 41 exonerations documented. The Georgia Innocence Project estimates 2,500 innocent people are currently imprisoned in Georgia based on a 4% wrongful conviction rate. This wrongful convictions are based mostly on DNA evidence, others estimate the true number of innocent people in Georgia to be closer to 10,000.
Conservative estimate: Potentially hundreds of Georgia prisoners have convictions where evolving forensic science could support extraordinary motions under the Smith framework.
Legal Precedent This Sets
The Smith decisions represent unanimous reversals by Georgia’s Supreme Court twice in three years, demonstrating serious judicial concern. The ruling definitively establishes:
Expert opinion as new evidence: New expert analysis based on evolved scientific understanding can constitute newly discovered evidence. Courts cannot categorically exclude expert opinion.
Proper Timberlake application: The materiality inquiry asks whether new evidence would probably create reasonable doubt, not whether conviction is more certain. Due diligence is measured from when scientific consensus changed. Courts must evaluate expert reliability using Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards.
Evidentiary hearing requirement: When extraordinary motions allege facts that could warrant relief, courts must hold evidentiary hearings with testimony and cross-examination.
Evolving science as valid basis: Changed scientific consensus can support extraordinary motions. When professions substantially revise diagnostic approaches or question earlier methodologies, courts must seriously consider these developments.
The ruling builds on State v. Gates (2022), where the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed an extraordinary motion based on new DNA analysis technology. Together, Gates and Smith establish that criminal justice must adapt to scientific progress.
The Reality About Success
Even with the Smith precedent, extraordinary motions based on evolving forensic science remain extremely difficult to win. A comprehensive study of 1,431 shaken baby syndrome appellate cases found only 3.4% of convictions overturned on appeal, with just 1.4% overturned specifically on medical evidence grounds.
Success requires exceptional evidence: multiple credible experts from respected institutions, peer-reviewed scientific literature, consensus statements from professional organizations, and preferably prosecution experts who have changed positions. Single expert opinions without broader scientific support will likely fail.
The Smith ruling improves the legal framework—courts must now apply proper standards rather than categorically excluding expert testimony. But improved framework does not guarantee success. Prisoners need patience, persistence, and realistic understanding of the challenges ahead.
Conclusion
The Georgia Supreme Court’s October 15, 2025 decision in Smith v. State provides prisoners convicted on questionable forensic science with improved legal tools to challenge their convictions. For prisoners with shaken baby syndrome convictions, cases involving bite marks, outdated arson science, or other substantially revised forensic methods, the precedent offers a roadmap.
Yet the path remains difficult. Success requires multiple credible experts, peer-reviewed literature, substantial resources, and often years of litigation. Georgia provides no systematic review of potentially affected cases. Prosecutors will vigorously defend original convictions.
The most important message: Smith improves your chances but guarantees nothing. Identify whether your case involves problematic forensic science. Seek legal representation immediately. Begin gathering evidence. Document everything. Be persistent.
The Smith case demonstrates that even after 22 years of incarceration, justice can eventually prevail through exceptional legal advocacy and comprehensive scientific evidence. The door is now open. Whether you can walk through it depends on the strength of your evidence and your willingness to persist through a difficult process.
Key Resources:
- Southern Center for Human Rights: (404) 688-1202, schr.org
- Georgia Innocence Project: georgiainnocenceproject.org
- Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences: cifsjustice.org
- National Registry of Exonerations: exonerationregistry.org
Sources researched for this article:
Legal Cases and Court Documents
Smith v. State (2022) – First Georgia Supreme Court reversal finding trial court misapplied legal standards
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ga-supreme-court/2104897.html
Smith v. State (2022) – Alternative source – Same case from Justia database
https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2022/s22a1051.html
Dick v. State (1982) – Georgia precedent case on extraordinary motions for new trial
https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/1982/38103-1.html
News Coverage of the Smith Case
WALB News – Coverage of Georgia Supreme Court’s October 2025 decision
Atlanta News First – Reporting on potential new trial for Smith
https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2025/10/15/man-convicted-killing-his-infant-son-may-get-new-trial
AccessWDUN – Coverage of Supreme Court ruling for new hearing
Atlanta Journal-Constitution – In-depth coverage of Georgia Supreme Court consideration
Yahoo News – Syndicated coverage of the case
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/georgia-supreme-court-says-dad-231227891.html
Capital B News Atlanta – Investigation into Smith’s fight against conviction
https://atlanta.capitalbnews.org/danyel-smith-shaken-baby-case/
The Georgia Gazette – Coverage of Supreme Court overturning lower court ruling
WBRC FOX6 News – Coverage of Supreme Court hearing the case
https://www.wbrc.com/2025/04/08/georgias-highest-court-hear-case-dad-convicted-killing-infant-son
The Appeal – Coverage of trial court upholding conviction before Supreme Court reversal
https://theappeal.org/danyel-smith-shaken-baby-syndrome-georgia-rejecte
11Alive – Medical experts questioning the conviction
STAT News – Analysis of medical expert testimony in shaken baby cases
https://www.statnews.com/2024/06/21/shaken-baby-syndrome-medical-expert-witness-danyel-smith-appeal
Georgia Legal Statutes and Resources
Georgia Code § 5-5-41 – Statute governing extraordinary motions for new trial
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-5/chapter-5/article-3/section-5-5-41
Georgia Parole Process Information – Official parole procedures
https://pap.georgia.gov/parole-consideration/parole-process-georgia
Board Annual Report 2022 – Statistics and procedures
https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_ggpd_1176275308-2022
Wikipedia – Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles – Background information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Board_of_Pardons_and_Paroles
Scientific and Medical Literature
PubMed Central – Evidence base questioning shaken baby syndrome diagnosis
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC381308
ScienceDirect – Study of overturned SBS convictions in the United States
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014521342100449X
Washington University Law Review – Analysis of shaken baby syndrome and criminal courts
https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/id/3426
AJR – Review of abusive head trauma evidence base
https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/ajr.14.14191
National Context and Wrongful Conviction Resources
The Texas Tribune – Coverage of Robert Roberson case and SBS controversy
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/17/robert-roberson-shaken-baby-controversy/
Criminal Legal News – Analysis of discredited shaken baby syndrome diagnoses
ProPublica – Investigation into abusive head trauma diagnoses
https://www.propublica.org/article/shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy
Slate – Article on discredited shaken baby science
National Registry of Exonerations – Database of wrongful convictions
https://exonerationregistry.org/cases
Legal Organizations
Southern Center for Human Rights – Organization representing Danyel Smith
SCHR Press Release on Smith Case – Official statement on Supreme Court victory
Georgia Innocence Project – Organization working on wrongful convictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Innocence_Project
Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences – Connecting defense attorneys with experts
https://cifsjustice.org/about-cifs/
Legislative and Reform Resources
Georgia Recorder – Coverage of wrongful conviction compensation legislation
Southern Center for Human Rights Collection – Historical documents at UGA
https://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/ms3277.xml
Prison Activist Resource Center – Information on SCHR’s work
https://www.prisonactivist.org/resources/southern-center-human-rights-0