Ann Arbor Hospital murders

Last updated

The Ann Arbor Hospital murders were the murders of 10 patients by unauthorized administration in their IV of the curare drug Pavulon in an Ann Arbor, Michigan, VA hospital in 1975. After a vast FBI investigation into the deaths, the nurses Filipina Narciso and Leonora Perez were charged with murder but convicted only for the charges of poisoning and conspiracy. Public opinion was against prosecution of the nurses on the basis that they could have had only the most trivial of possible motives for conspiring to commit such extremely serious crimes, and the case was dropped after a retrial had been ordered.

Contents

Homicides and investigation

During a few months in 1975, patients at the VA hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, began suffering respiratory failure and sometimes died with extraordinary frequency. In a single 20 min period on a day in mid-August, three patients required emergency treatment to save their lives, and the chief of anesthesiology found that the patients responded to an antidote for a paralyzing drug and so called in the FBI. [1] The case series was written up in the New England Journal. ( Strosser, 1975 ) Investigators found that the nurse Filipina Narciso had been on duty in the relevant ward during every poisoning, and she was identified by a patient as the nurse who had injected something into his IV just before his breathing suddenly stopped. [1]

The nurse Leonora Perez was also identified by another patient as having injected his IV just before his respiratory arrest occurred, but like the patient who had identified Narciso, he died before the trial. [1] [2] The case against Narciso and Perez was considered by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Richard Delonis to be "highly circumstantial", but the defense lawyers felt that it was strong enough that they had to put their clients on the stand, where they appeared evasive. [2] There was only one charge of murder considered by the jury, and the other charges was of poisoning. [1] [2]

Both defendants were recent immigrants to the United States, and the trial was marred by accusations of racism. One man, originally slated to be the lead witness for the prosecution, referred to Perez and Narciso as "slant-eyed bitches" and asserted that there was a nationwide conspiracy of Filipino nurses to murder veterans. [3] Also, racial tensions ran high because of the country's large rates of immigration from Asia. [4]

The two defendants were the primary but not always the only nurses on duty during the poisonings. [5] The prosecution emphasized the regular proximity of the defendants to poisoned patients. Crucial evidence came from a relative of the victims, who testified that one of the defendants had been in the room and doing something to the bedside equipment just before he suddenly stopped breathing. [1] [6] The significance of the evidence that the defendants had been in the room shortly before was that the injections of Pavulon, according to the prosecution's experts, must have been administered only minutes before the victims had suffered paralysis and stopped breathing. [1] [2] [7] Narciso and Perez were acquitted of the murder charge, but both nurses were found guilty of three counts of poisoning and conspiracy to poison patients. [1]

Verdicts and appeal

Pacifico Marcos, the president of the Philippine Medical Association and the younger brother of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, headed a defense fund and called the verdict a "miscarriage of justice". [5] In February of the following year, a judge set aside the guilty verdicts by ruling that the jury, which had deliberated for 15 days and acquitted on the only remaining murder charge and some of the poisoning charges, may have been influenced by what amounted to prejudicial presentation of the prosecution case during the trial. [8]

The new attorney general declined to mount another prosecution, reportedly because the American public was not behind the prosecution of the nurses, and the defendants were unlikely to make the mistake of exposing themselves to cross-examination again. [1] Narciso and Perez had suffered as a result of their lengthy trial process. The prosecution of Narciso and Perez for the murders became a focal point for many protest groups and Filipinos, who united in their condemnation of the handling of the case and expressed support for both nurses. [3]

See also

General:

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuremberg trials</span> Series of military trials at the end of World War II

The Nuremberg trials were held by the Allies against representatives of the defeated Nazi Germany for plotting and carrying out invasions of other countries and atrocities against their citizens in World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Bodkin Adams</span> British physician and fraudster (1899–1983)

John Bodkin Adams was a British general practitioner, convicted fraudster, and suspected serial killer. Between 1946 and 1956, 163 of his patients died while in comas, which was deemed to be worthy of investigation. In addition, 132 out of 310 patients had left Adams money or items in their wills.

The Toronto hospital baby deaths were a series of suspicious deaths that occurred in the Cardiac Ward of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, Canada between July 1980 and March 1981. The deaths started after a cardiology ward had been divided into two new adjacent wards. The deaths ended after the police had been called in, and the digitalis-type medication that had possibly been used for the alleged killings (digoxin) had begun to be kept under lock and key. Three nurses were at the centre of the investigation and an apparent attempt to poison nurses' food. One of the nurses, Susan Nelles, was charged with four murders, but the prosecution was dismissed a year later on the grounds that she could not have been responsible for a death excluded from the indictment, which the judge deemed a murder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IG Farben Trial</span> Post-WWII war crimes trial

The United States of America vs. Carl Krauch, et al., also known as the IG Farben Trial, was the sixth of the twelve trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany (Nuremberg) after the end of World War II. IG Farben was the private German chemicals company allied with the Nazis that manufactured the Zyklon B gas used to commit genocide against millions of European Jews in the Holocaust.

The Wood Green ricin plot was an alleged bioterrorism plot to attack the London Underground with ricin poison. The Metropolitan Police Service arrested six suspects on 5 January 2003, with one more arrested two days later.

<i>R v Adams</i> (1957) English medical case law

R v Adams [1957] is an English case that established the principle of double effect applicable to doctors: that if a doctor "gave treatment to a seriously ill patient with the aim of relieving pain or distress, as a result of which that person's life was inadvertently shortened, the doctor was not guilty of murder" where a restoration to health is no longer possible. Such medicines are among those sometimes used in palliative care, most commonly for the most severe pain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Benjamin Geen</span> British murderer

Benjamin Geen is a British repeat murderer who killed two of his own patients and committed grievous bodily harm against 15 others while working as a nurse at Horton General Hospital in Banbury, Oxfordshire in 2003 and 2004. Geen, who was believed to be motivated by his 'thrill-seeking' temperament, injected a number of patients with dangerous drugs in order to cause respiratory arrest so he could enjoy the 'thrill' of resuscitating them. He was apprehended after staff at the hospital noticed that it was always when he treated patients, most of whom only had minor injuries such as dislocated shoulders, that they inexplicably had respiratory failures. Upon his arrest, a syringe full of some of the drugs he used to attack patients was found on his person. When he saw officers approaching, he discharged the syringe contents into his jacket pocket in an attempt to hide the fact he had removed potentially lethal drugs from the hospital without authority. He was found guilty at trial in 2006 and sentenced to a minimum of 30 years imprisonment. All but one of the guilty verdicts against him were by unanimous jury decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lucia de Berk case</span> Dutch paediatric nurse

The Lucia de Berk case was a miscarriage of justice in the Netherlands concerning the wrongful conviction for murder of a Dutch licensed paediatric nurse. In 2003, Lucia de Berk was sentenced to life imprisonment, for which no parole is possible under Dutch law, for four murders and three attempted murders of patients under her care. In 2004, after an appeal, she was convicted of seven murders and three attempted murders.

Gertrude "Bobby" Hullett, a resident of Eastbourne, East Sussex, England, was a patient of Dr John Bodkin Adams, who was indicted for her murder but not brought to trial for it. Adams was tried in 1957 for the murder of Edith Alice Morrell, and the prosecution intended to proceed with the Hullett indictment as a second prosecution that could follow the Morrell case in certain circumstances, although it did not bring the case to trial following the verdict in the Morrell trial.

Edith Alice Morrell was a resident of Eastbourne, East Sussex, England, and patient of Dr John Bodkin Adams. Although Adams was acquitted in 1957 of her murder, the question of Adams' role in Morrell's death excited considerable interest at the time and continues to do so. This is partly because of negative pre-trial publicity which remains in the public record, partly because of the several dramatic incidents in the trial and partly as Adams declined to give evidence in his own defence. The trial featured in headlines around the world and was described at the time as "one of the greatest murder trials of all time" and "murder trial of the century". It was also described by the trial judge as unique because "the act of murder" had "to be proved by expert evidence." The trial also established the legal doctrine of double effect, where a doctor giving treatment with the aim of relieving pain may, as an unintentional result, shorten life.

Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence was a British lawyer, High Court Judge, Chairman of the Bar Council and Chairman of the National Incomes Commission. He first came to prominence when he defended Dr John Bodkin Adams in 1957 on a charge of the murder of Mrs Edith Alice Morrell, the first murder case he handled. Prejudicial press coverage of the case prior to the trial suggested Adams was guilty and that the verdict would be a foregone conclusion, but Lawrence successfully secured an acquittal. Adams, if convicted, night have been hanged, had he also been found guilty on a second murder indictment that had been brought. Devlin at the time and later investigation suggested Adams was acquitted in part due to inadequate prosecution preparations and also due to the lack of strong and credible evidence.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2011 Stepping Hill Hospital poisoning incident</span> 2011 serial murder in the United Kingdom

In 2011, a series of deaths occurred at the Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport, Greater Manchester. After suspicions were raised concerning the similarities of the deaths, a murder inquiry was launched. Nurse Victorino Chua was found to have poisoned several patients with insulin. He was convicted of murder in 2015 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Richard Angelo is an American serial killer who operated within Long Island and West Islip, New York. In 1989, he was convicted of murdering several of his patients and sentenced to 50-years-to-life in prison.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Winkler County nurse whistleblower case</span> Legal proceedings against two Texas nurses for reporting a doctor to the state medical board

The Winkler County nurse whistleblower case was a series of legal proceedings in West Texas concerning the retaliation against two nurses who submitted an anonymous state medical board complaint against a physician in 2009. The case attracted national attention for its implications on whistleblowing by nurses.

The Euthanasia trials were legal proceedings against the main perpetrators and accomplices involved in the "euthanasia" murders of the Nazi era in Germany.

The Kharkov Trial was a war crimes trial held in front of a Soviet military tribunal in December 1943 in Kharkov, Soviet Union. Defendants included one Soviet collaborator, as well as German military, police, and SS personnel responsible for implementing the occupational policies during the German–Soviet War of 1941–45. The trial was the first time that German personnel had been tried for war crimes by the Allies during and after World War II.

William Scott Husel is an American intensive/critical care physician who was charged with 14 counts of murder relating to the deaths of multiple patients from his care of terminally ill patients at Mount Carmel West and St. Ann's Hospitals in Columbus, Ohio. The prosecution in this case argued that Dr. Husel hastened the death of terminally ill patients. He turned himself in on June 5, 2019. After an extensive trial, Husel was found not guilty on all counts on April 20, 2022.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Greg Stejskal (February 3, 2011), The Murders at Ann Arbor's Veterans Hospital; What Went Right and What Ultimately Went Wrong in the Case, Tickle the Wire
  2. 1 2 3 4 Galang, M. (2003). Screaming Monkeys: Critiques of Asian American Images. Coffee House Press.
  3. 1 2 Choy, Catherine (2003). Empire of Care: Nursing and Migration in Filipino-American History. Duke University Press.
  4. ↑ Ngai, Mae (2005). Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America . Princeton University Press.
  5. 1 2 "Long Count to A Guilty Verdict". Time . July 25, 1977. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007.
  6. ↑ Lane, Brian. Encyclopedia of Serial Killers.[ full citation needed ]
  7. ↑ Cheyfitz, Kirk (July 14, 1977). "Nurses Convicted in Poisoning Case". The Washington Post .
  8. ↑ Pratt, Phillip (1978). "US. v. Narciso and Perez, Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Defendants' Motion for a New Trial" p. 17.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.