The upcoming trial of Alexi Traviso, a 20-year-old from New Mexico, has raised critical legal questions regarding admissible evidence. Traviso is facing charges of first-degree murder and evidence tampering in connection with the death of her newborn baby in January 2023.
Traviso, then a 19-year-old high school student, visited Artesia General Hospital complaining of lower back pain. She unexpectedly went into labor and gave birth in a hospital bathroom. Hospital staff later discovered the newborn’s body in a trash can.
The central legal debate revolves around statements Traviso allegedly made at the hospital and whether they can be used against her in court. Her defense team argues that doctor-patient privilege, as well as a violation of her Miranda rights, should exclude these statements from the trial.
Alexi Traviso in court
The Incident and Traviso’s Statements
On January 27, 2023, Traviso sought medical attention for what she believed was lower back pain. Around 1:30 am, she unexpectedly went into labor. Hospital staff attending to Traviso were unaware of her pregnancy.
A hospital worker testified that after a positive pregnancy test, Traviso requested to use the restroom, remaining there for an extended period. When staff finally gained entry, they discovered blood in the bathroom.
Traviso was returned to her room, and during a subsequent examination, a doctor discovered she had given birth. It was then that a horrifying discovery was made: the lifeless body of a newborn baby concealed in the bottom of a trash can.
In the aftermath of the discovery, Traviso allegedly made statements to her mother and hospital staff. These statements, captured on audio and video, have become a point of contention.
In the recording, Traviso can be heard saying, “We discovered a dead baby in the bathroom. Oh my gosh, I’m sorry he came out of me, and I didn’t know what to do.”
Legal Arguments and Court Decisions
Traviso’s defense attorneys argue that her statements were made under duress and within the context of seeking medical care, thus protected under doctor-patient privilege. They also assert that her Miranda rights were violated because police were present in the room and she was effectively in custody.
The district court agreed with the defense, ruling that Traviso’s statements were inadmissible. However, the prosecution is appealing this decision to the state supreme court.
District Attorney Diana Luce argues that the statements are crucial evidence of criminal intent and should be allowed in the trial. The DA’s office maintains their commitment to protecting children, especially those unable to protect themselves.
District Attorney Diana Luce speaks to the media
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal experts have weighed in on the complexities of the case, particularly the issues of doctor-patient privilege and Miranda rights.
Professor Jules Epstein, evidence expert and professor of law at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, highlights the significance of doctor-patient privilege, stating that conversations related to medical care are intended to be confidential. However, the presence of Traviso’s mother in the room complicates the issue.
Regarding Miranda rights, Professor Epstein emphasizes that the dynamics of the situation are crucial. The fact that police were present in the room does not automatically constitute custody. The court will need to determine if the environment was coercive and if the police directed or requested the questioning.
Professor Jules Epstein in a Law & Crime Network interview
Defense Strategy and Civil Lawsuit
Adding another layer to the case, Traviso’s defense attorneys have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the hospital. They allege that the hospital’s negligence and the medication administered to Traviso are to blame for the baby’s death.
Traviso’s attorney, Gary Mitchell, claims the hospital injected her with a cocktail of drugs, including morphine, which ultimately led to the baby’s inability to breathe. This strategy not only creates a potential defense for the murder charge but also shifts blame away from Traviso in the civil case.
Uncertain Future
The outcome of the case remains uncertain as the state supreme court decides whether to take up the appeal. This delay puts the trial on hold, prolonging the legal battle.
The Traviso case highlights the intricate legal issues surrounding medical privacy, admissible evidence, and the rights of individuals facing criminal charges, particularly in cases involving complex medical circumstances and the death of a newborn.
