PUEBLO, Colo. — A public defender challenged the thoroughness of a child abuse investigation during a Friday hearing at Pueblo Combined Court, questioning why an officer waited approximately 10 months to file a report and failed to review extensive medical records from an infant’s earlier hospitalization.
Judge William Alexander presided over the continued preliminary proceedings in a case involving allegations of abuse against an infant who suffered multiple injuries, including fractured ribs, bruising and bleeding in the brain.
On June 8, 2025, Officer Julee Quintana of the Pueblo Police Department’s Special Victims Unit visited the home of the accused and her husband after authorities became aware of a potential child abuse case.
The investigation began after the accused’s infant son was admitted to a children’s hospital with injuries that medical professionals suspected could have resulted from abuse.
During questioning by the prosecution, Quintana testified that the accused could not identify a definitive cause of the injuries.
According to Quintana, the accused “wasn’t sure” what had happened and suggested that the infant might have fallen from a couch or been struck with a toy car by an older sibling.
Although the infant’s condition eventually stabilized, doctors informed Quintana that they believed the injuries were “non-accidental” and consistent with shaken baby syndrome.
The diagnosis, sometimes discussed under the broader term abusive head trauma, has been the subject of medical and legal debate, particularly concerning whether specific combinations of injuries can establish abuse or identify its cause without additional evidence.
Following the investigation and review of medical records, Child Protective Services removed the accused’s children from the home and placed them in protective custody.
The infant remained in foster care at the time of the hearing, while the accused had regained custody of two other children.
During cross-examination, the assistant public defender challenged the scope of Quintana’s investigation, arguing that the officer had “only conducted half of an investigation.”
The defense focused particularly on the infant’s extensive medical history, including a hospitalization lasting nearly 100 days shortly after birth.
According to the testimony, the infant was born prematurely and had suffered from an E. coli infection, requiring prolonged hospitalization before the injuries that prompted the abuse investigation were reported.
When asked whether she had reviewed medical records from that hospitalization, Quintana acknowledged that she had not.
The defense questioned how investigators could determine the cause and timing of the infant’s injuries without examining records documenting his earlier medical condition and treatment.
Quintana also acknowledged that although physicians suspected non-accidental trauma, the medical findings did not conclusively establish how the injuries occurred.
The public defender characterized the investigation as “grasping at straws,” questioning whether alternative explanations had been adequately examined.
When asked whether the injuries could have occurred during the infant’s extended hospitalization, Quintana acknowledged that it “was a possibility.”
The defense then asked whether she had investigated hospital employees for potential abuse during the infant’s stay.
Quintana testified that she had not.
The public defender also questioned the length of time between the initial investigation and the filing of Quintana’s report.
Although the incident occurred in June 2025, Quintana did not file her report until April 2026, approximately 10 months later.
The defense pointed out that the report was filed around the time the accused regained custody of two of her children, a development Quintana acknowledged knowing about.
When asked why she had “sat on the case” for nearly a year, Quintana attributed the delay to staffing limitations within the Special Victims Unit.
She testified that she was one of only two officers assigned to the unit and also served as its acting supervisor.
When the public defender asked whether additional personnel assisted her when her caseload became overwhelming, Quintana answered “no.”
The testimony raised questions about the investigation’s completeness, including the failure to review the infant’s earlier medical history, examine alternative explanations for his injuries and complete the report for nearly 10 months.
Alexander adjourned the hearing without a final determination, with proceedings scheduled to resume the following week.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
