Arguments under way in baby case

By Julie Manganis
Staff writer

October 23, 2009 09:05 am

—

PEABODY — As baby Jocelyn's head flung back and forth, her brain slammed against the walls of her skull with enough force to crack it, the prosecutor said.

Her eyes filled with blood, the prosecutor said.

The nerves in her brain were torn and destroyed from the force of the shaking, each tear releasing chemicals that destroyed more of her brain, the prosecutor said. Jocelyn's brain could no longer get oxygen and began to die.

As that prosecutor, Kate MacDougall, described each detail of Jocelyn Mae Ward-Anderson's brutal death, Jennifer Ward showed little reaction.

Ward, 39, of Peabody, is standing trial in Salem Superior Court on charges that she murdered her 9-month-old baby daughter by shaking her hard enough to cause a catastrophic brain injury two years ago.

"She was shaken, she was slammed and her arm was ... snapped," MacDougall told jurors.

And the only person who had access to the child to cause those injuries at the time was Ward, who just hours earlier had been complaining to the baby's father, the prosecutor said.

Ward's defense remains unknown at this point — defense lawyer Tom Barrett chose not to give his opening statement yesterday, choosing to wait until the conclusion of the prosecution's case.

It appeared yesterday that at least part of Barrett's strategy was an effort to discredit the family of the baby's father, Robert Anderson — though that effort may have backfired on Barrett by the end of yesterday's testimony.

Barrett, who had convinced Judge David Lowy to bar references to Ward's drug use and the reason the Department of Social Services had removed the baby from Ward and Anderson for a time, yesterday may have opened the door for such testimony, when Barrett himself confronted Anderson with segments of a DSS report referring to suspected drug use.

During a hearing outside the presence of jurors, Barrett acknowledged to Lowy the purpose of his questions "is to attack the credibility of the witness," who had testified about failing a drug test, which led to his reincarceration.

But both the prosecutor and the judge questioned the relevance of that information.

"What's the relevance of that information unless you've got a third-party culprit defense, which would be pretty hard if he's incarcerated at the time?" Lowy asked.

After consulting briefly with Ward, Barrett then told the judge that it was relevant because the baby had been taken from the parents because both were using drugs, "including this man who's now on the stand who's leading the jury to believe he's not using."

MacDougall argued that Barrett is not only misreading the DSS report, but that the baby was initially sent home from the hospital with the couple only because Anderson had been drug-free, not Ward, who had tested positive for drugs when she gave birth to Jocelyn, who also tested positive for cocaine.

If Lowy allows the line of questions from Barrett when testimony resumes this morning, MacDougall could be allowed to then raise the issue of why the baby was removed from both parents' custody, which was due in part to drug use by both.

Anderson testified yesterday that he had been "clean" for more than four years when he relapsed in May 2007 and failed a drug test that led to his return to prison.

The baby was removed from Ward's custody around that time. Anderson testified that when the baby was returned to Ward, he often counseled her in phone calls from prison to be patient with the child.

"Just be patient," Anderson, 47, said he told Ward. "I'll be home soon."

On the afternoon of Nov. 18, Anderson said Ward's tone "wasn't normal."

"She's yelling at the baby for being under her feet," Anderson, who has three older children, testified. "I said, 'She's a baby, that's what babies do. They follow you wherever you go.'"

He was concerned and called back a few hours later, shortly before the Patriots game that night.

In that call, he couldn't hear the baby in the background. And Ward sounded calm.

MacDougall also took issue with Barrett's line of questioning of Anderson's family, including a question he put to the first witness, Mary Johnson, the 67-year-old paternal grandmother of Jocelyn.

Johnson, a mother of 10 who told jurors she's lost count of how many grandchildren she has, cared for the baby for several months after DSS removed the baby from Ward and Anderson.

Johnson smiled sadly when MacDougall showed her a picture of Jocelyn getting a bath.

"She was a happy baby," Johnson said.

Barrett's first question to Johnson didn't have anything to do with Jocelyn.

"Do all your children have the same last name?" Barrett asked the baby's grandmother.

When Johnson, apparently taken aback, responded, "Yes," Barrett tried another angle: "And your last name is Johnson?"

The line of questioning prompted an objection from the prosecutor and a comment from the judge: "I'm not sure I see the relevance," Lowy told Barrett.

And, after Latasha Anderson, the baby's 23-year-old cousin, testified about the "beautiful baby" with "glossy eyes" napping quietly in the car on the afternoon before she died, Barrett tried to question the Lynn woman about where her own child was at the time.

The jurors also heard yesterday from Brenda Kelly, a Lahey Clinic nurse.

"I remember someone carrying a child in and saying, 'There's something wrong with my baby,'" Kelly testified. She took the child and immediately realized something was seriously wrong.

The child was "floppy" and not responding to any stimulation. The baby's heart rate was extremely low, about half of what it should have been. Kelly also noticed red marks on her forehead and abdomen and a bruise on her left eyelid.

"She was in a critical situation," Kelly said.

Copyright © 1999-2010 cnhi, inc.