The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued an important decision addressing the limits of expert medical testimony in criminal cases.

In People v. Murphy, the Court held that a physician’s testimony diagnosing “medical torture” should not have been admitted because it was unhelpful to the jury, lacked a reliable foundation, and invaded the province of the jury by offering what amounted to a legal conclusion.

Although the Court ultimately affirmed the defendant’s conviction because it found the error was harmless, meaning the improperly admitted testimony did not affect the outcome, the ruling reinforces an important principle: medical experts explain medical evidence; juries decide whether a crime has been committed.

At Satawa Law, we believe this reasoning has implications beyond torture cases. The same concerns arise when experts use diagnoses such as Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) or Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) in a way that effectively tells the jury intentional abuse occurred. Expert testimony should assist the jury but not replace its role.

When criminal cases depend on complex medical evidence, ensuring expert testimony stays within its proper bounds is essential to a fair trial.