Amicus Brief Arguing that Internet Searches About Abortion and Lack of Prenatal Care Are Not Relevant Evidence of Murderous Intent Toward Newborn

This amicus brief argues that the State and lower courts relied upon irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial evidence (i.e. internet search history regarding abortion, abstention from prenatal care) to “articulate a motive for a murderous act on a newborn child.” The brief discusses the unfair prejudice that flows from admission of this evidence given stereotypes about women and motherhood (pages 5-6).  It also highlights empirical research showing that abstention from prenatal care can stem from “maternity care deserts” and “limited maternity care access,” rather than “murderous” intent (pages 6-7).