Rat poison not yet linked to Shuai newborn death

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Prosecutors acknowledged Thursday they could not currently provide a witness who would definitively testify that rat poison Bei Bei Shuai ingested was the cause of her newborn’s death, for which she stands charged with murder.

“I’m concerned hearing this in a case that was filed in (March) 2011,” Marion Superior Judge Sheila Carlisle said during a motions hearing.

Meantime, Carlisle warned prosecutors and defense attorneys she would grant no more continuances for the trial of Shuai, whose newborn daughter died days after Shuai had consumed poison in a failed suicide attempt after being jilted by the baby’s father.

Prosecutors said a Michigan expert reviewing evidence had still not rendered an opinion on the cause of the infant’s death, though prosecutors previously told Carlisle and defense attorneys they expected the doctor’s review would be completed in mid- to late-April.

“To not know what his position is is very unjust,” defense attorney Linda Pence told Carlisle. The expert now is scheduled to be deposed by both sides in mid-May. Shuai is scheduled to stand trial Sept. 3.

Deputy prosecutor Courtney Curtis told Carlisle the expert was “two-thirds of the way through the process” of determining a cause of death. “These people are scientists and they’re very cautious with what their process is. We’re just not there yet,” Curtis said.

After Thursday’s hearing, Pence said Shuai has been charged with murder for more than two years, but “as of now, they’ve not presented any testimony from an expert” on cause of death. “It’s alarming to me.”

Carlisle ruled in January that a medical examiner’s testimony that rat poison caused the death was unreliable and not admissible.

The Shuai case became international news after charges were filed. Pence says charges should never have been brought and represents a criminalization of conduct for which men and non-pregnant women would not have been prosecuted.

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry said in an August interview that the language of criminal statutes under which Shuai was charged is plain, and he had no hesitation about filing charges once facts of the case were known because Shuai’s conduct fell within that language.
Carlisle acknowledged the hundreds of potential exhibits from prosecutors and the defense and made the pronouncement that rather than granting continuances, evidence would be stricken if it didn’t meet deadlines.

“This is going to be a monumental case and it’s going to take a lot of cooperation,” Carlisle said. “There is no continuation of this jury date.”

Carlisle also Thursday heard a motion in limine from Pence to bar autopsy photos of newborn Angel Shuai. Pence said the photos shouldn’t be admitted before the defense has had an opportunity to know who might be testifying regarding cause of death.

Carlisle said she would rule on that motion later, along with a dozen prosecution motions in limine seeking to limit broad ranges of testimony and courtroom conduct, including: prior convictions or bad acts or potential witnesses; references to lack of criminal history or residence status of potential witnesses; decisions about prior plea offers and prosecution; limiting courtroom attire such as shirts, hats or buttons that advocate a position on the prosecution; and statements that illicit sympathy.

In only one instance did Carlisle act on a motion before her Thursday, granting a prosecution request to bar any evidence pertaining to a potential range of sentencing if Shuai were convicted of murder.   



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?