On May 26, 2026, Judge Daniel O’Shea issued his decision overturning Brian’s conviction.

Newly Discovered Evidence:

As you will read on the pages on the New Trial Motion and Evidentiary Hearing, medical experts testifying for the defense presented critical, scientific and clinical data that completely undermines the Commonwealth’s theory about the timeline and cause of Christopher’s tragic death.

The NTM cites Dr. Van Ee’s biomechanical testimony as newly discovered evidence. “At the hearing, Dr. Van Ee opined that Dr. Weiner and Dr. Newberger’s testimony that Christopher’s skull fracture required the application of violent force similar to a fall from a second-story window onto concrete and could not be caused by a fall down some stairs, was incorrect.”

Dr. Van Ee testified that it was not until studies in 2016 and 2022 that researchers learned that children can sustain basilar skull fractures after falling from a height of less than six feet, including falls down stairs, can remain alert and responsive immediately after such a fall, and need not suffer immediate death. “Those findings differ significantly from the principles relied upon at the time of trial and Peixoto has met his burden to demonstrate that Dr. Van Ee’s opinion is newly discovered.”

Judge O’Shea explained, “Peixoto is entitled to a new trial only if Dr. Van Ee’s opinion that Christopher’s skull fracture could have been caused by a single fall of three to five feet would have been a real factor in the jury’s deliberations. Here, Dr. Van Ee’s opinion does more than merely impeach Dr. Weiner and Dr. Newberger’s testimony; it wholly contradicts the Commonwealth’s theory about Christopher’s cause of death.”  

As such, Dr. Van Ee’s opinion, supported by recent pediatric studies, would have been a real factor in the jury’s deliberations.

The NTM also cites as newly discovered the evidence that it is no longer considered scientifically reliable to pinpoint the age of a bruise based on its color.

“At the time of trial, the medical community routinely relied on color to date or age bruises. Dr. Ophoven testified that the first analysis rejecting the aging of bruises by color was published in 2005, but this rejection was not accepted by the law enforcement and prosecutorial communities until 2014, when the Department of Justice retracted its guidance on the use of bruise color to estimate age. Accordingly, Peixoto has met his burden to demonstrate that this evidence was newly discovered since his last motion for a new trial. Further, such evidence would have been a real factor in the jury’s deliberations.” (D. 68)

Judge O’Shea referenced Dr. Newberger’s trial testimony on bruises. The state’s expert testified at trial that he was concerned about the number of bruises on Christopher’s body and opined that most of those bruises were inflicted at the time of death. “This bolstered the Commonwealth’s theory that Christopher died from a violent assault by Peixoto in the basement shortly before his death. Testimony that the age of a bruise cannot reliably be determined by its color, particularly when coupled with testimony that a basilar skull fracture need not be caused by extreme force and can be caused by a fall down a few stairs, would contradict the Commonwealth’s theory of the cause of Christopher’s death. It therefore would have been a real factor in the jury’s deliberations.” (D. 68)

Confluence of factors:

In cases where a defendant may not meet the standard for obtaining a new trial on a specific theory such as newly discovered evidence, the court may exercise its broad discretion in applying the principle that a new trial should be granted where, taking all factors into cumulative consideration, justice may not have been done.

Judge O’Shea identified several, qualifying factors:

• All of the experts who testified at the evidentiary hearing acknowledged that testimony offered at trial by Dr. Weiner and Dr. Newberger that Christopher’s head trauma could only have been caused by the “massive” forces is inaccurate and that Christopher’s fatal injury could have been caused by a fall down a few steps that would not have produced immediate death.

• The expert medical and biomechanical testimony proffered at the evidentiary hearing, although for the most part not newly discovered, could have offered the jury an alternative interpretation of the evidence with respect to Christopher’s death.

• There is also evidentiary support that Christopher had several falls, ranging from earlier on the date of his death to about nine or ten days prior to that. Testimony taken at the evidentiary hearing shows that blunt head trauma causing a basilar skull fracture could have occurred during one or more of those falls.

“Certainly, armed with such information, competent counsel could have pursued an accident defense as an alternative explanation for the skull fracture.”

• Further, there was no evidence presented at trial concerning the potential importance of Christopher’s critically high serum lab results. “[I]t is clear that no one involved in Peixoto’s trial had or made use of that information.”

• Given what was revealed at the evidentiary hearing concerning PTDI, its relation to head trauma, and its implications for the timeline of Christopher’s head injury, if the trial were conducted today, it would be manifestly unreasonable for defense counsel to fail to retain an expert. The absence of such evidence deprived Peixoto of a substantial ground of defense.”

Finding:

“It is sufficient that there is a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice from the jury’s failure to hear any evidence challenging the testimony of the Commonwealth’s trial experts that Christopher’s fatal brain injury was caused by extreme force intentionally inflicted on the date of his death.”

Judge O’Shea concluded, “Had the jury been presented with all the evidence proffered at the evidentiary hearing, they may have concluded that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peixoto inflicted head trauma on Christopher.”

 “Ultimately, however, fundamental fairness requires that a judgment of guilt or innocence be rendered by a jury informed about, not ignorant of, a scientifically plausible alternative explanation for Christopher’s tragic death. The testimony proffered at the evidentiary hearing would have bolstered Peixoto’s trial defense that someone else could have been responsible for causing Christopher’s fatal head injury or that said injury was accidental. The absence of such evidence created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.”