Does anyone know the final outcome of this criminal case?

We have discussed this a few times here.

Link (take spaces out of "w w w":

http://w w w.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/582741.stm

This was reaction to the verdict against Susan Newkirk, the Pennsylvania woman convicted and sentenced to 9–18 months in jail in 2005 after her boyfriend's toddler drowned in a flooded river in 2004. The prosecution claimed that she had a "duty" to try to save the boy, even though she couldn't swim and did tell the father immediately. Many who responded to this news believed that the sentence would be overturned on appeal. But what did happen?

My Google searches have not turned up any mention of the appeal, except a comment in another childfree forum that (the poster believed) Newkirk had in fact lost the appeal—but no link or court citation. Everything on Google about the case is generally from 2005, the year of the conviction, and an appeal would presumably have been a year or two later. I also searched the Post-Gazette online archives with no luck.

Does anyone know the disposition on appeal, and is there a link to the results? Thanks.

I can't find anything either. The fact that there isn't anything out there makes me think that she would have lost the appeal.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Not every ejaculation deserves a name" - George Carlin

I couldn't find anything under any of the key names, including the kid and attorney, nor was there ANYTHING gossip or rumor related on their local Topix community forum either. In addition to that, nothing came up under her name in the Blair county public criminal court records either. It's as if the case and all the players just vanished into thin air.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

No Newkirks on the PA Inmate Locator

_______________________________________________
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”

I wouldn't be surprised if everything related was purged because this sets a dangerous precedent. Like someone said in the Joe Paterno thread, a kid dies due to its parents' negligence, now bystanders can be punished for not immediately risking their lives to save the brat and the "parents" get off scot-free because "they suffered enough?" It takes the "village" concept to ridiculous levels.

One thing I read about the Newkirk case is that the idiot father who let his kid die took a fucking plea deal by testifying against Newkirk so he could get out of charges of gross negligence leading to death.

I wish I were there in that courtroom. Did they bring in emergency response personnel? As a former EMT, I can tell you that one of the first things we were taught is that your own ass comes first, everybody else second. If you see somebody fall in a swollen or raging body of water, YOU DO NOT GO IN. Wait for the Coast Guard. If you go in, all you do is add an extra corpse for them to haul out. Now, if EMTs are taught that, can we really hold a bystander who can't swim responsible? The only person who had a responsibility to risk his ass to save his kid was the father and he failed to do that, despite having already received a warning about his son was wandering too close.

Fuck, that case pisses me off.

Per the docket and briefs appended to a table decision on Westlaw, her conviction for child endangerment was affirmed on September 5, 2006, after her defense team tried to argue that the trial court erred in allowing Daddy Dearest not to testify. Gets tricky searching for court docs from Pennsylvania: the Keystone State is less than forthcoming when it comes to first names (or even first initials) for many defendants....

Well, she would have long since done her time. And I bet she will never, ever date a single duh again (since it was her bf's kid, and he threw her under the bus by copping a plea for reckless endangerment and turning against her to save his own hide.)

Thanks for checking Westlaw, Nemo. Now we know the rest of this story, and it turns out not to be a happy ending.

Hard to believe the ruling wasn't overturned on appeal, but these days, not surprising.

Anyone need any more incentive to stay away from kyds and single moos/duhs?

To repeat:

Does ANYONE understand why they could jail her for this but (maybe) couldn't jail her for not simply keeping a sharper eye on the kid beforehand? After all, a nearby non-swimming STRANGER who hadn't seen the kid until AFTER the kid fell in wouldn't be blamed for not jumping in, so what's the difference?

The duh blamed her entirely, and testified against her. The jury bought his bullshit because A CHYYYYLD DIIIIIED. He got off with a slap on the wrist and no more child support obligations by copping a plea and placing blame on someone else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to pick up a bus full of unruly kids and feed them gummi bears and crack, then turn them loose in Hobby Lobby to ransack the place. They will all be wearing T shirts that say "You Could Have Prevented This."

That's the thing: he blamed her, but he was not required to testify in court. That's what her defense team tried to argue on appeal: that the trial court was wrong in letting him off the hook when he chose not to take the stand. Makes the outcome even more chilling, if you ask me....