GWINNETT COUNTY, GA — Lawyers for an imprisoned Gwinnett County father are hopeful he will get a new trial, as Georgia’s Supreme Court reverses a judge’s ruling barring a do-over in the alleged murder of the man’s infant son.

Danyel Smith was convicted of murder in 2003, the year after the death of his two-month-old son, Chandler. A Gwinnett County jury was told that the baby died of “shaken baby syndrome.” Now, looking at the case through up-to-date medical and scientific evidence, experts agree that Chandler was not abused.

Still, a Gwinnett County judge denied Smith’s motion for a new trial. Georgia justices unanimously ruled Wednesday, October 15, 2025 that the lower court misapplied the law in doing so. They sent the case back to the trial court.

Smith’s attorney says that should lead to a new trial--and notes the Supreme Court urged the trial court to act “swiftly.”

“I think it was a pretty powerful statement that they issued,” says Mark Loudon-Brown, a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights. The SCHR and The Koehler Firm have been representing Smith.

If the trial judge orders a new trial, it would then fall to the office of Gwinnett County District Attorney Patsy Austin-Gatson to decide how to move forward.

“While this is a pending case, the Georgia Supreme Court has sent it back for consideration by the trial judge. We will continue to advocate on behalf of the victims and the people of the state of Georgia,” the D.A.’s Office says in a statement.

Loudon-Brown says a trial for Smith today would look very different than the one 22 years ago. Then, a jury was told the infant was a victim of shaken baby syndrome, but eight scientific and medical experts have testified that’s not correct.

“Mr. Smith’s son Chandler, who he was convicted of murdering, did not, in fact, die of abuse, but in fact died of natural causes stemming back to a premature birth and a skull fracture that occurred at that time,” says Loudon-Brown. “That was our argument to the trial court, that he’s entitled to a new trial based on that new evidence.”

The State, represented by Gwinnett County Assistant D. A. Christopher Deneve, argued to the Supreme Court of Georgia on April 15, 2025 that Smith’s new evidence was not admissible because it did not meet the legal standard of reliability.

“The testimony at Danyel Smith’s trial was correct. He was properly convicted. The science of shaken baby syndrome has not changed,” said Deneve.

Loudon-Brown said Smith was convicted in the heyday of “shaken baby syndrome,” when no one considered any other possibility in the child’s death. Today, he says, even a major prosecution witness sees the case through a new lens.

“The State’s own medical examiner who 20 years ago diagnosed this as ‘shaken baby’ admitted that the science has changed and that he would offer different opinions...were he to testify today,” says Loudon-Brown.

Loudon-Brown says this type of development is not isolated to Smith’s case. He says in the past five years or so, there have been perhaps 15 to 20 exonerations in similar cases in Georgia and other states.

The National Registry of Exonerations lists 39 since 1989.

Loudon-Brown tells WSB that Chandler’s mother testified at Danyel Smith’s trial, describing him as a “Mr. Mom,” a doting father who was always present throughout the little boy’s short life.

Wednesday afternoon, the attorney had not been able to reach Smith to deliver the news of the ruling, but said he was confident Smith had probably heard about it and was eager for next steps.

He finds it telling that Smith gave up an opportunity to get out of prison, instead choosing to keep fighting to clear his name.

“A few years ago, before this hearing, Mr. Smith--who’s been in prison for over two decades--was offered a plea to time served, meaning he could’ve walked free if he had just said ‘Yeah, I did this,’ and pled guilty,” says Loudon-Brown. “He refused to do that because he would not say that he was guilty of a crime that he didn’t commit.

“So while...we’re very grateful for the win and very appreciative of the opinion that was issued, there’s a bittersweet element to it because Mr. Smith is still in prison, and that should not be the case.”