Author Archives: Chris

Louisiana v. Doctor Richard J. Schmidt.

In 1994, Dr. Richard Schmidt was convicted of attempted second degree murder in the state of Louisiana. Schmidt injected his lover, Janice Trahan with a Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive blood sample from a prior patient he had seen earlier that night. It was the first case in United States History to ever use phylogenetic testing to obtain DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA) evidence in order to prosecute the suspect. However, this case led to the incrimination and thus further oppression of those with less life chances.

The background of this case is centered on Doctor Richard J. Schmidt who in 1998 was convicted of attempted second degree murder. Schmidt compromised his integrity as a doctor by using a blood sample which belonged his patient which tested as Human Immunodeficiency Virus positive; maliciously injecting the blood sample into Janice Trahan. Schmidt indicated to Janice, that the injection was a Vitamin B-12 shot, when in reality it was HIV. Eventually Janice fell ill and later tested positive for HIV and Hepatitis C. With the use of phylogenetics, the lab was able to connect Janice’s DNA to Schmidt’s prior patient, whom the HIV positive DNA originated. With this evidence the court was able to prove that Richard J. Schmidt was in fact guilty.

There are a multiplicity of aspects which makes this case State of Louisiana v. Richard Schmidt noteworthy. One significant feature this case discloses is the mere landmark seeing as this is the first case to ever utilize phylogenetics in identifying a positive match between one HIV patient. Phylogenetics uses applied microbiological DNA testing to link one individual’s blood sample to another. Another remarkable indication of Schmidt’s case is the fact by which HIV was prosecuted in court as a weapon of criminal intent. This case thusly opened up inevitable complications between the relationship of an HIV positive community and the law; hence the case led to the criminalization of anyone who may have tested positive for HIV, on the possible grounds of bodily harm and malicious intent of spreading a lethal virus, whether the suspect was truly innocent or not.

Preceding this trial, a case in Florida was made against Dr. David K. Acer. A dentist who was allegedly gave six of his patients a Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Prior to Schmidt’s case, Dr. Acer was the first health care provider to have infected his patients with a virus. Due to the media attention which followed this case, and his patient Kimberly Bergalis, who tested HIV positive from the same strain of Dr. Acer which thusly led to her demise in 1991, lawmakers and health officials were coerced to restrict infected health-care workers. According to a New York Times article, “A possible motive was suggested by Edward Parsons, a nurse who was a friend of Dr. Acer. He told The Palm Beach Post [in 1992] that Dr. Acer had […mentioned in] 1988 that mainstream America was ignoring AIDS because it affected mostly homosexuals like himself, hemophiliacs and drug addicts. ‘When it starts affecting grandmothers and younger people, then you’ll see something done,’ Mr. Parsons said Dr. Acer told him.”

In “The Common Place of Law,” by Patricia Ewick and Susan S. Silby, each speak about perceptions of the law in relation to everyday life. Given the historical events taking place before the inditement of Schmidt, we can argue Dr. Acer’s intent might have been an act of resistance. According to Ewik and Silby, Acer encompassed an awareness of being “[…] less powerful in a relationship of power.” Also conscious of his opportunity to take advantage of his situation, he thusly intervened in an autonomous fashion. He also fulfilled the third and final requirement of resistance by assessing “[…] that power has produced unfair constraints and opportunities.”(p.183)  Although his actions were somewhat self-interested and may not have utilized a very ethical tactic, he made due with a convenient resource.

Unfortunately, both of these cases has created an idea of Intersectional discrimination. Intersectional discrimination can be simplified as the creation of a stigma for anyone who falls within the lines of those with less life chances. In this case, an individual who might have a positive reading for HIV and/or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). These acts of resistance in conjunction with Schmidt’s case, may have negatively linked minority groups such as gay men, sex workers and even those who use drugs recreationally. This is an unintentional outcome of these individuals. Although People who are HIV positive expressly  have the choice to who they expose this virus to, Schmidt’s case made it illegal to transmit the disease in any way. Intentional or not. This has become a stigma of the disease because of the actions of Acer and Schmidt.

HIV and AIDS are now considered a lethal weapon typically used with the intention to create a hostile environment for those who did not have the opportunity to object to such circumstances. In this case, the virus was used with vengeance. This conversely can bring about wrongful convictions because a no-positive individual may have consensual sex or share a needle with an HIV positive and or those with AIDS with full knowledge of the circumstance. Personal vendettas can be brought against the individual with a positive testing and may be at risk of criminalization, simply for possessing the virus. This shows a hateful future between individuals by categorizing those with HIV or AIDS as being viewed as a societal deviant.

There is not much that one can argue about the verdict of Louisiana v. Schmidt seeing as Schmidt not only pled guilty of malicious intent to cause bodily harm, but the phylogenetic testing which provided further evidence for such an insidious crime. However, an argument Schmidt made subsequent to his verdict in 1998 which was that a fifty-year sentence displayed excessive force to what he percieved as a trivial crime. The court in return believed a fifty year sentence was justified for the crime committed.

To some, fifty years may not seem to be enough for injecting someone with a lethal virus, Trahan can begin to cope with living with HIV. Unfortunately this will affect her for the remainder of her life. This case has set a platform of revolutionary history, which benefits anyone and anything with a DNA sample. This case was the start of many of cases which used  phylogenetic testing to find justice in a complicated and somewhat faulty system. The people as well as the state now have this power to request this forensic testing to be utilized to protect innocent people.

Christina/Melanie/Anisa.

Works Cited

    • Ewick, Patricia, and Susan S. Silbey. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1998. Print.


    • Michael, Metzker. “Molecular Evidence of HIV-1 Transmission in a Criminal Case.” Molecular Evidence of HIV-1 Transmission in a Criminal Case. Cross Mark, 04 Sept. 2002.
    • “Posters.” Clinical Microbiology and Infection. WileyPlus, n.d. Web.


    • Quincy. “New Understanding of Law and Pros.” JSTOR. JSTOR, 31 Oct. 2004. Web.


    Spade, Dean. Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law. Brooklyn, NY: South End, 2011. Print.

  • Ratzan, Scott C. “Chapter 7.” AIDS: Effective Health Communication for the 90s. Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis, 1993. 142-45. Print.