News Politics

Bei Bei Shuai Jury Selection Set for Late August

Robin Marty

Despite having no evidence that Shuai murdered her child, the prosecution is still making moves to put her on trial.

Bei Bei Shuai, the Chinese immigrant in Indiana who’s accused of murder for the death of her daughter Angel, who was delivered early after Shuai ingested rat poison in a failed suicide attempt, will go to trial in September. The prosecution currently has no evidence that the poison caused Angel’s death.

Officials have announced that jury selection for Shuai’s murder trial will begin on August 26. The trial is being delayed while the prosecution has a new medical expert examine evidence from the case. A prior medical examiner’s testimony was dismissed from the case, as it was discovered she never examined any potential cause of death besides the poison, which has not been shown conclusively to cross the placental barrier.

Shuai’s lawyer, Linda Pence, has decried the refusal to drop the murder charges against Shuai in light of the lack of evidence in the case. “As of now, they have not provided any testimony from an expert that can testify that the rat poison caused the death of the fetus, which is alarming to me,” Pence told RTV6 in Indiana. “When you charge someone with murder, the most heinous crime on the books, you would have competent good evidence before you made those charges.”

Shuai was held in jail without bail for over a year before being allowed out on bond. Both women’s rights and mental health rights groups have actively petitioned the court to drop the case, arguing that jailing a woman for attempted suicide while pregnant will set a precedent that will discourage pregnant women from seeking assistance when they have mental health crises.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

News Human Rights

Black Lives Matter Activist Sentenced for ‘Lynching’ Released Due to Overcrowding

Nicole Knight Shine

Jasmine “Abdullah” Richards was convicted earlier this month under a California statute known until recently as “felony lynching," a law that criminalizes “taking by means of a riot of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer.”

California Black Lives Matter activist Jasmine “Abdullah” Richards, who was sentenced to 90 days in jail on a felony charge of “lynching,” was released Saturday from Lynwood’s Century Regional Detention Facility due to jail overcrowding, a Black Lives Matter organizer told Rewire Tuesday.

“Her release is hugely important to Black Lives Matter as she is one of our core activists and lead for Black Lives Matter, Pasadena chapter,” said Melina Abdullah, a Black Lives Matter organizer who said she met Richards nearly two years ago in Ferguson, where the death of the unarmed Black man Michael Brown galvanized activists across the nation.

Richards was convicted earlier this month under a California statute known until recently as “felony lynching,” a law that criminalizes “taking by means of a riot of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer.” Under the law, two or more people are defined as a “riot.”

The charges stem from when Richards, founder of Black Lives Matter Pasadena, attempted to intervene in a woman’s arrest following a Black Lives Matter peace march last August.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Abdullah explained to Rewire that Richards had a protest-related misdemeanor charge that had to be paid at the time of her release.

On June 7, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elaine Lu sentenced 29-year-old Richards to 90 days in county jail, with 18 days of credit for time served; three years of probation; and a year of anger management.

“The fact that she was also sentenced to three years probation … is clearly an attempt to hinder her activism,” Abdullah told Rewire Tuesday by email. “We will appeal her conviction and the movement will not be deterred, but will redouble our commitment to ending state-sanctioned violence.”

Activists earlier this month denounced the sentence as a “mockery of our justice system.” More than 200 activists rallied outside the courthouse during the sentencing, according to reports, clapping and chanting “Free Jasmine.”

Activists had called Richards’ arrest a “perverse” application of a law “intended to stop lynch mobs from forcibly removing detainees from police custody and engaging in public murders of Black people.” An online petition urging Lu to free Richards had gathered more than 80,000 signatures by the time of the sentencing.

Richards was the “first African-American ever to be convicted of the charge” of lynching in the United States, according to Pasadena Now. Activists called Richards the Black Lives Matter movement’s first political prisoner.

“To take this law, that was used allegedly to protect Black people from being lynched, and to turn around and use this law against a Black person who is actually speaking about the lynchings, the serial lynchings, that are going on at the hands of police, not just in Pasadena, but all over this country, is more than ironic, it’s disgusting,” Richards’ attorney, Nana Gyamfi, told Democracy Now! prior to the sentencing.

After the sentencing, Richards addressed the crowd gathered outside the Pasadena courthouse via her attorney’s speakerphone, saying “Thank you guys,” and “I love everybody.”

Richards was arrested two days after a Black Lives Matter peace march, when authorities said she tried to intervene as police officers apprehended a young Black woman in the park. Richards was a key organizer of the march, where activists were demanding justice for Kendrec McDade, an unarmed 19-year-old Black teenager who was shot and killed by Pasadena police in 2012.

Video of the incident shows Richards and other activists trying to intercede on the woman’s behalf, with voices that can be heard saying to authorities, “she’s only 130 pounds” and “she’s a petite girl.”

Pasadena police Lt. Tracey Ibarra said, “When the officers attempted to detain her [the suspect] then part of the Black Lives Matter protest group attempted to intercede,” as Pasadena Now reported last September.

Richards was initially charged with inciting a riot, delaying and obstructing peace officers, child endangerment, and felony lynching, but all but the lynching charge was dropped before the trial.

Her attorney said she was convicted by a jury that was about half white, with no Black jurors, though Black people making up 13 percent of the population in Pasadena and 8 percent in Los Angeles County.

Analysis Law and Policy

Patel Oral Arguments Suggest a Dangerous Precedent for Prosecuting Pregnant People

Jessica Mason Pieklo

Attorneys for the State of Indiana argued it is entirely reasonable for the state to bring felony charges against women who try and terminate their own pregnancies.

Read our other articles on the Purvi Patel case here.

Almost three years ago, the State of Indiana first charged Purvi Patel with both feticide and neglect of a dependent following Patel’s home delivery of what state doctors testified was a 25-week-old fetus. Today, there is still no clear picture of the events leading up to those charges. Based on the conflicting evidence presented at Patel’s seven-day trial, it’s not clear what Patel knew about her pregnancy, including how far along she was. It’s not clear what exactly happened that day in Patel’s bathroom. And, most importantly, there is no clear picture of whether the delivery resulted in a live birth.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

But on Monday, lawyers from the state Attorney General’s Office argued to the Indiana Court of Appeals that none of those unknowns matter. Patel’s charges of feticide for unlawfully terminating her pregnancy and neglecting a live dependent were not contradictory. Quite simply, argued Indiana Deputy Attorney General Ellen Meilaender, if there’s evidence that a person’s conduct contributed to the death of a fetus or a severely prematurely infant born alive that then dies, that person faces possible felony prosecution both for feticide and criminal neglect of a dependent—setting a disturbing potential precedent for pregnant people throughout the state.

The Indiana feticide statute makes it a felony for a person to “knowingly or intentionally terminate a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.” The statute is silent on whether a self-induced abortion falls under this category. Indiana prosecutors argue that it does and told the appeals court Monday that the jury verdict against Patel proved them right.

The state made a similar argument with Patel’s conviction for felony neglect of a dependent. According to the state, by taking abortion-inducing drugs, Patel created a situation that put her “dependent”—in other words, her fetus—in harm’s way. Once delivered alive, the state argued, Patel had a legal duty to immediately seek medical attention on its behalf, including clamping her umbilical cord immediately after delivery to prevent neonatal blood loss and calling 9-1-1 for emergency care. It made no difference, prosecutors said, that the medical evidence was contradictory as to whether there was a live birth at all, or what, if anything, Patel understood was happening at the time of the delivery.

Patel’s attorneys may disagree with the inferences made by the jury, state attorneys argued, but that doesn’t mean the law grants the court grounds to overturn the jury verdict.

It wasn’t clear to me at the end of oral arguments that the three-judge panel was buying the State’s argument. The judges pushed Meilaender hard on where the law should draw the line between taking nonprescribed abortion medications that produce a live birth where the baby then dies—as the state argued happened here—to drinking whiskey, smoking cigarettes, or taking any other host of actions that may help contribute to a miscarriage. The judges seemed to agree that it would be excessive to prosecute pregnant people for smoking, for example. The judges also appeared skeptical about the argument that the feticide statute doesn’t require the fetus to die in utero, and that even a live birth can and should be prosecuted under this statute if the accused person’s original intent was to terminate a pregnancy outside Indiana’s stringent legal abortion requirements.

But it also wasn’t clear they bought the argument of Patel’s attorney, Lawrence Marshall, that the state hadn’t met its burden of proof when it convicted her. Marshall stammered to keep the judges on point, refusing to answer whether federal constitutional precedent, from Roe v. Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would protect many other people from unchecked pregnancy policing under feticide laws. (Spoiler: The simple answer is no—as Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas, to name a few, show).

The heart of the state’s negligence case against Patel rests on her alleged failure to seek care for a live birth. Yet Marshall could not specifically and directly answer the judges’ concerns that Patel, after allegedly cutting the umbilical cord during delivery, should have also immediately clamped or kinked it to prevent any blood loss to the fetus she just delivered. He did not note that it is unreasonable to expect any woman immediately following an extremely premature delivery to have the presence of mind to do such things, lest she face felony prosecution. He tried to point out that there was medical testimony at trial that at 25 weeks, severely prematurely born infants have only modest survival rates even when born at hospitals and immediately transferred to neonatal intensive care units, and tried to argue the state couldn’t prove that Patel had any idea a live birth had even happened. But all those counters appeared to fall flat on a panel of judges clearly willing to consider, and perhaps even accept, that Patel’s failure to kink her umbilical cord and call 9-1-1 immediately post-delivery was sufficient to convict her for felony neglect of a dependent.

Throughout the trial and the appeal, the state compensated for its lack of direct evidence about the situation by trying to redirect the jury’s focus to Patel’s “character,” which, prosecutors argued, helped inform the decision to convict her. Patel was in a relationship with a married man. Evidence at trial showed she had been texting back and forth with a friend concerning the pregnancy and her desire to terminate it, in part because of fears her conservative Hindu family would not support her. That’s both sexually provocative and naive, argued the state in its appellate brief—provocative because she was acting outside religious and social norms, and naive because “family would have loved her regardless and would have welcomed the baby, as it is their religious belief to love a child even if born out of wedlock and their religion is opposed to killing anyone or anything.”

Meanwhile, the state argued, the evidence that should be weighed in Patel’s favor did not matter. That included evidence at trial that showed Patel believed she was only about 12 weeks pregnant—not about 25 weeks—when she took the unprescribed abortifacient. Not important, argued the state. All that matters is her fetus was old enough to fall outside Indiana’s limit on 20-week abortions. Evidence at trial showed that Patel tried, ultimately unsuccessfully, to navigate Indiana’s web of anti-choice restrictions before ordering abortion-inducing medications online; but that just demonstrates Patel had the right criminal intent to support the jury’s conviction, said Meilaender, not that those regulations are difficult for non-lawyers to navigate on their own.

In other words, argued Meilaender, the details that should normally be necessary to support a criminal conviction—details such as what Patel knew, and when—just don’t matter in this case.

Those details do matter. That’s why the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected nearly identical arguments in the prosecution of Jenni Linn McCormack, an Idaho woman who also terminated a pregnancy and was criminally prosecuted for it. Expecting patients to understand the intricacies of abortion restrictions or face criminal prosecution at its very core unduly burdens abortion rights, that court ruled.

It will likely be months before the Indiana Court of Appeals issues its opinion. And I’m not going to make any guesses about how this case turns out. But I will say that, despite all the unknowns in the Patel case, there are plenty of knowns that ultimately affect Patel and pregnant people in Indiana as a whole.

We know that Indiana law does not mandate sex education be taught in its schools. The Indiana Department of Education recommends its inclusion as part of a school’s comprehensive health education program. But that’s it. And for those schools that decide to offer some form of sex ed, there’s no requirement that the information provided be unbiased and medically accurate, let alone do anything other than stress abstinence-only sex ed. And of course, parents in Indiana have the option of opting out of sex ed entirely for their children should they so choose.

We also know that legal abortion in Indiana is extensively and severely restricted. First, any person seeking an abortion must receive state-mandated counseling that includes information designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion. That counseling must be done in person. Indiana law then requires a patient to wait an additional 18 hours after that counseling session before an abortion can be performed. That means, effectively, patients must make two separate trips to an abortion clinic to have the procedure. A patient must also undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion and during that ultrasound the provider must offer her the option to view the ultrasound image.

Indiana law also prohibits the use of telemedicine for medication abortion. Also, Indiana bans abortions after 20 weeks, with only a very narrow exception of when the patient’s life or physical health is at risk.

And if that patient can navigate the consent and waiting period requirements, how will they pay for the procedure? In Indiana, abortion is covered in private insurance policies only in cases of life endangerment, rape, incest, or the severely compromised health of the pregnant person. Individuals have the option of buying a separate abortion policy, but that, of course, is at additional cost.

What do Indiana’s sex ed requirements and abortion restrictions have to do with Patel’s conviction and appeal? Everything. Just like the fact that Patel, like Bei Bei Shuai before her, is not white and is not wealthy. A lack of comprehensive sex education means it’s increasingly likely other patients will, like Patel, have very little apparent understanding of the pregnancy process, particularly early on in pregnancy when indicators such as a missed period can be mixed. An increasingly draconian set of abortion restrictions means more and more patients like Patel will find themselves unable to access a legal provider or afford an abortion at all, which means that more and more patients like Patel will be forced into either attempting to self-terminate an unwanted pregnancy or carrying it to term.

Attorneys for the State of Indiana tried to tone down the “canary in a coal mine” aspect to Patel’s conviction. But there really is no denying it. During Monday’s arguments, they were pressing for the right to bring felony charges against women who terminate their own pregnancies. They insisted those prosecutions are exactly what the Indiana legislature intended when passing its feticide statute and further, such prosecutions advanced the state’s “significant” interest in protecting “unborn human life.”

Combine those arguments with the unavailability of comprehensive sex ed and the anti-choice restrictions in Indiana, and it’s clear that Patel’s case is absolutely a test case in the limits, if any, of state power to regulate pregnancies and their outcomes. Should Patel’s conviction be upheld, then the courts will have sent a very strong message to the the people of Indiana: The state expects and demands a healthy, live birth with each pregnancy, and failure to produce one could result in felony charges.