Defence lawyers for Louise Woodward, the British au pair who has been sentenced to life imprisonment, will try to have the murder verdict set aside or reduced to manslaughter next week. The verdict has caused an outcry in Britain and mixed feelings in the US.
Woodward was found guilty of the second-degree murder of Matthew Eappen, the eight-month-old baby she was minding. The prosecution claimed she had shaken and dropped the baby, fracturing his skull and causing massive brain damage, on February 4th this year.
The 19-year-old au pair, who strongly denied the charge, broke down and sobbed in court when the jury delivered its verdict of guilty. "I didn't do anything. I didn't hurt Matthew," she cried as one of her lawyers tried to comfort her.
In view of her emotional state, Judge Hiller Zobel, in an exceptional procedure, postponed sentencing until yesterday, when he imposed the mandatory life term, with possibility of parole after 15 years.
This time Woodward, who comes from Elton, outside Liverpool, seemed less distraught but she wept before the sentence was pronounced and told the court: "I just would like to maintain my innocence and say that I never would have hurt Matty. And I don't know what happened to him. I'm not responsible for his death."
Earlier, she had to listen to the baby's parents make emotional addresses to the court. Ms Deborah Eappen told of her love for Matthew. "I am sickened to think that he was crying for help and was beaten by hands that were supposed to be caring for him."
She said that Louise Woodward "didn't seem like a child abuser or a monster or a murderer" and that "we had no idea she would harm our kid".
The baby's father, Mr Sunil Eappen, almost broke down as he said: "Despite my hatred for the actions of Louise and my current disdain for her, I really truly hope that she can face up to what she has done to gain forgiveness."
The defence lawyers had said they would ask the judge to overturn the verdict or order a retrial. However, Judge Zobel suggested a third option, that of reducing the offence, presumably to one of manslaughter. But legal experts say it is very unlikely that the judge will accept any of these applications.
In that event, the defence will appeal the verdict within 30 days. It claims that the judge should have allowed the jury to have a transcript of the medical evidence of a defence witness. It also says the judge gave misleading instructions to the jury.