Abortion doctor won't testify, call witnesses; closing arguments set for Monday
PHILADELPHIA — A Philadelphia abortion provider won't testify or call witnesses at his capital murder trial, leaving jurors to weigh five weeks of prosecution evidence.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, is charged with killing four babies allegedly born alive at a clinic that authorities have described as filthy. He also is charged in the 2009 overdose death of a 41-year-old refugee who died just months after coming to the America.
Gosnell's defense rested on Wednesday without calling a witness. The jury is expected to hear closing arguments on Monday.
Former employees have testified that Gosnell relied on untrained, unlicensed staff to sedate and monitor women as they waited for abortions. Three workers have pleaded guilty to third-degree murder charges, admitting they helped medicate the adult victim or “snipped” babies' necks after they were born alive to make sure they died.
They told jurors that Gosnell had taught them the technique, and said they trusted that it was legal. At least one, though, admits she grew so concerned about conditions at the clinic that she took pictures of the outdated equipment, messy rooms and stacked specimen jars containing the severed feet of aborted babies.
Gosnell told staff he sometimes kept the samples for DNA purposes in case the pregnancy led to assault charges. Prosecution experts said there were less invasive ways to preserve DNA.
“Once fetuses leave the mother, they are then due the respect that would be given any human being,” Assistant District Attorney Ed Cameron argued Tuesday, in support of abuse of corpse charges filed over the severed feet.
Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Minehart, though, agreed with a defense motion to drop those charges.
Minehart on Tuesday also threw out three of the original seven murder charges involving babies, apparently concluding that the prosecution had not presented enough evidence for the jury to find they were viable, born alive and then killed.
“There is not one piece — not one — of objective, scientific evidence that anyone was born alive,” defense lawyer Jack McMahon argued on Tuesday, in what is likely a preview of his closing arguments.
McMahon did most of his work by grilling prosecution witnesses, including former clinic workers. Although several said they had seen babies born alive, McMahon suggested the brief movements or breaths they saw were involuntary spasms during the death process. He argued that each of the babies had purportedly moved, breathed or whined just once.
“These are not the movements of a live child,” McMahon said.
One employee, though, has pleaded guilty to killing a baby that was alive for about 20 minutes.
Expert witness testimony has been another key portion of the case. Prosecutors called neonatologists who estimated that some of the babies were nearly 30 weeks gestation, far past the state's 24-week limit for abortions.
McMahon argued that such dating is imprecise and that the margin of error is at least two weeks on either side.
The only employee to go on trial with Gosnell, medical school graduate Eileen O'Neill, is charged with theft for allegedly practicing medicine without a license.
Her attorney called a string of witnesses this week, most of whom testified about her character. O'Neill, 56, of Phoenixville, didn't take the stand.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Stylish, inexpensive dress takes television newsrooms by storm
- Web-savvy terrorists have success luring U.S. recruits with social media
- Congress agrees to transportation bill
- House votes to thwart power plant regulations
- Death of Juneau mayor remains unsolved
- IRS pledges its investigators will stop tracking cellphones without warrants
- Cleveland officer says he, partner repeatedly yelled ‘show me your hands’ to 12-year-old who was shot
- Bin Laden aide’s conspiracy charge outside military tribunal’s jurisdiction, appeals court told
- In letter to Congress, former national security experts back settling Syrian refugees
- Bill to end warrantless reading of Americans’ emails under review by House panel
- Cybersecurity proposal erodes open records laws