By Dalena Reporters l December 30, 2025
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — In a rare and legally significant decision, a Lee County Circuit Court judge has vacated the 2020 conviction of an Alabama woman who had been serving an 18-year prison sentence following a stillbirth and ordered a new trial, citing newly presented evidence that could alter the case’s fundamental narrative.
On December 22, 2025, Judge Jeffrey Tickal overturned the conviction of Brooke Shoemaker, whose original case centered on a prosecution under Alabama’s chemical endangerment of a child statute after she experienced a stillbirth at approximately 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy in 2017. The ruling comes after Shoemaker’s legal team introduced new expert evidence suggesting that the death was caused by a severe infection and genetic abnormality, not exclusively attributed to alleged drug use, undermining the prosecution’s original premise.
Shoemaker originally admitted to medical staff that she had used methamphetamine while pregnant, and traces of the substance were found in the fetus’s bloodstream. However, the state medical examiner did not determine drug use as the definitive cause of fetal death, a critical point underscored by the defense’s new medical testimony. The judge’s ruling held that, had jurors been presented with this evidence at trial, the outcome may have differed.
Legal advocates and rights groups, including Pregnancy Justice, which assisted with the appeal, have long warned that stringent interpretations of fetal protection laws disproportionately criminalize pregnant people. They welcomed the judge’s decision, framing it as a recognition of scientific nuance and due process in cases involving complex medical causation.
Prosecutors have already filed a notice of appeal with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, challenging the trial court’s decision and arguing that the new evidence was simply a reinterpretation of previously available information rather than genuinely new material warranting retrial. Shoemaker remains incarcerated while the appellate process unfolds.
Shoemaker, through her legal representatives, expressed hope that a new trial would ultimately lead to her release and reunification with her family, stressing that she loved and wanted her child and maintained she did not deserve to be punished for a pregnancy loss.
Alabama has been identified by advocates as a focal point of pregnancy-related criminal prosecutions, with the state’s chemical endangerment law applied in multiple cases involving maternal conduct. Critics contend that broad applications of such laws raise serious concerns about the intersection of medical privacy, reproductive rights, and criminal justice practices.
As the appeal progresses, the case is likely to draw continued national attention, particularly from reproductive rights organizations, legal scholars, and medical professionals examining the legal treatment of pregnancy loss and related health issues under existing criminal statutes.