Danyel Smith was convicted of murdering his infant son based on a theory commonly described as shaken-baby syndrome. Nineteen years later, he filed an extraordinary motion for new trial supported by a new expert affidavit asserting that the medical science had changed and that the infant’s injuries were not caused by abuse or shaking. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated that ruling. It held that Smith alleged facts which, if proven, could warrant relief, so the trial court was required to hold a hearing rather than reject the motion on the papers. The Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing and reconsideration of the motion under the applicable legal standards. The decision did not determine whether Smith was entitled to a new trial or whether the new scientific evidence was ultimately persuasive.