Comment by rossant

Yes, as others have said. However, this is a legitimate question, because in these specific cases, the burden of proof tends to be on the side of the defendant who needs to prove they didn't harm their child. That's obviously impossible, and probably unconstitutional.

When medical experts claim they're 100% confident that this child was violently shaken at this specific time, and that you were the only person with the child at that time, how can you defend yourself when you haven't done anything? There's nothing you could ever do to convince courts that your word has more value than the confidence of highly reputable experts with decades of experience.

This is an instance where the prosecution's case relies on the confidence in medical authorities, and where it is extremely hard to challenge it as the subject is so difficult on a scientific and technical level. In the US and other adversarial jurisdictions, you see an incredible level of technicality during oral debates, with extensive and long-running discussions around extremely obscure points related to the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of the infant nervous system in highly specific pathological situations, where infants frequently suffer from multiple rare medical conditions or risk factors. Few people in the world have the required expertise, and even fewer accept to testify in courts! There's also an obvious financial imbalance between the State and the defendant.

In inquisitorial jurisdictions like France, this is even worse as there's basically no system in place to challenge the views of the State's experts.

So, yes, litigating these cases is extraordinarily challenging because the only way to prove the defendant's innocence is to challenge the opinion of overly assertive medical experts by digging into highly difficult (and multidisciplinary) science.