Damned If She Does, Damned If She Doesn’t: De-Legitimization of Women’s Agency in Commonwealth v. Woodward

Abstract

Mothers are never innocent. (1) When Deborah Eappen left for work on the morning of February 4, 1997, her eight-month-old child, Matthew, was alive and in the care of his au pair of three months, British nineteen-year-old Louise Woodward. (2) When she next saw Matthew, he was in the hospital, (3) the victim of severe head trauma. (4) Five days later he was dead. (5) The death of child is always disturbing event and manifest injustice. Even where an objective analysis would fail to find fault, the tragic nature of the occurrence will lead to search for blame. (6) This phenomenon is intensified in the courtroom, as the adversarial process demands the placement of blame. (7) Yet how blame is dispersed is often informed by far more than the evidence put before the jury. Although the parties before the court may not so acknowledge, deep-seated social understandings can also play role in the distribution of blame. (8) The trial that ensued from the death of Matthew Eappen was no exception. This Article will evaluate many of the social and legal factors that influence the distribution of blame when child dies. It proceeds on the assumption that the standards of criminal law are intended in part to align legal culpability with causation--that is, the defendant's proximal responsibility for the occurrence of the act. (9) Specifically, this Article explores the disparate social criticism and legal treatment of infanticidal mothers as compared with other caretakers who kill, and concludes that, in affording non-mothers excuses that are not permitted for mothers, both society and courts have disregarded traditional standards required for murder and manslaughter convictions, such as proof of intent and knowledge per that of the reasonable person. (10) As result, when faced with female defendant charged with killing child in her care, both the public and the legal system fail to give proper regard to the defendant's choices, and thus fail to accord her the appropriate level of blame. Furthermore, the objectification of the female defendant, particularly when she is mother, as symbol for large subset of women may deny her the ability to explain her own story in the courtroom. I have referred to these effects--the tendency to ignore the actual responsibility of particular defendant in light of pervasive cultural counternarrative and the application of different standards of culpability to different groups of women--as the delegitimization of women's agency. Louise Woodward was indicted for Matthew's death. (11) She was found guilty of second degree murder by jury of nine women and three men and was sentenced, under Massachusetts law, to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. (12) The defense moved for post-judgment relief, and on November 10, 1997, the trial judge vacated the sentence and reduced the jury's verdict from second degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. (13) He sentenced Woodward to 279 days in prison, which she had served in full during the trial and post-conviction process. (14) Less than nine months after Matthew's death, Louise Woodward was free woman. (15) While Woodward fought her battle in the courtroom, Deborah Eappen face[d] the court of public opinion. (16) In the wake of the death of her son, Eappen received hate mail and threatening telephone calls. (17) She was also excoriated in the press, (18) on the radio, (19) and on the Internet. (20) Deborah Eappen and her husband, Sunil, had hired Woodward in order for Eappen to continue her ophthalmology practice part-time; she worked three days week and returned home in the afternoons to nurse Matthew. (21) Although Woodward's defense rested on stalwart claim of innocence, (22) and many of her defenders suggested that Eappen, not Woodward, was guilty of abusing Matthew, (23) the primary criticism of Eappen revolved around her choice to go back to work. (24) By leaving her child with nanny in order to resume her career, Eappen became a public symbol of maternal neglect and yuppie greed, (25) who at least indirectly caused the tragedy by leaving him in incapable hands (26) and at worst deserved to have her baby die[. …