Articles

Mother acquitted in child abuse case

COURTS: Torrance jury deadlocks on a verdict favoring the father of a month-old baby who had 22 bone fractures

By Denise Nix, Daily Breeze, July 29, 2005

A jury acquitted a mother Thursday of abusing her newborn son, who had nearly two dozen bone fractures at 28 days old, and deadlocked 10-2 in favor of not guilty on the charge against the baby’s father.

Joseph and Emily Arredondo, formerly of Rancho Palos Verdes, and their friends and family cried and hugged after the jury gave Torrance Superior Court Judge Francis J. Hourigan its status following two days of deliberations.

Joseph Arredondo, 25, is expected to return to court today so his attorney, Mark Brandt, can ask the judge to dismiss the charge. If Hourigan declines to drop the case, the District Attorney’s Office will decide whether to re-try him.

“He’s feeling very happy for Emily,” Brandt said. “They’re a team and he knows that he’s innocent of this crime and he’s hopeful that the case will be dismissed.”

Robert Berke, who represents Emily Arredondo, said: “These people are innocent.”

Both attorneys noted that seven doctors had told the jury they didn’t believe Charles Arredondo’s injuries were cause by abuse, but were likely a symptom of an unknown genetic disorder that affects the boy’s eyes and teeth, growth and development and causes brittle bones.

The prosecution theorized that Charles, now 15 months old, was in pain because the lenses in his eyes were dislocated, causing pressure and glaucoma. His excessive crying led one or both of his parents to lose their temper and to squeeze, twist or tug on the boy, it was all alleged.

Deputy District Attorney Liliana Gonzalez argued that the fractures were caused by abuse because the boy suffered no new fractures after being taken from his parents’ custody.

The doctors who testified for the prosecution said the location and pattern of the 22 fractures point to trauma and rejected the defense’s claims that Charles had a medical problem affecting his bones.

The Arredondo’s believed Charles suffered from colic, and told doctors, investigators and the jury that he cried when they moved him and vomited frequently and his eyes didn’t seem normal. On May 11, 2004, when he was 28 days old, he was checked into a hospital.

The fractures and eye problems were discovered then. Since then, other questions about the boy’s health, including his small size and lack of any fully erupted teeth, suggest medical problems.

Gonzalez praised the jury for its hard work.

“They took a long time. They were diligent,” she said. “The verdict is what it is.”

Doug Hall, a 54-year-old alternate juror who did not deliberate, said he would have voted not guilty for both.

“There was doubt all over the place,” Hall said, referring to the legal standard that jurors must acquit if they have reasonable doubt the accused committed the crime.

Hall said the medical testimony was the most compelling because it isn’t clear if Charles had a bone disorder.

He put a lot of weight on the testimony of Charles’ former pediatrician, who said he did not believe Charles was abused.

Besides the medical evidence, Hall said the many character witnesses who described the Arredondos as caring and loving parents also convinced him.

“They were too good of parents to really be involved,” Hall said.

Hall speculated that the jurors were able to reach a verdict on Emily Arredondo, who turns 24 today, and not on her husband because an audiotape of an emotional interview she had with a sheriff’s detective showed how upset and confused she was about Charles’ condition.

The jurors received a read back of Arredondo’s testimony and that of a sheriff’s deputy who interviewed him. Arredondo had told the deputy he feared he may have hurt Charles unintentionally while diapering him or playing with him.

“I think it would be a mistake to retry him,” Hall said of Arredondo.