June 16 (Court TV) -- British former au pair Louise Woodward's original conviction for manslaughter and sentence of time served was upheld today by Massachusetts' highest court.

Watch the cross examination of Louise Woodward during her trial.

Download Realplayer

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld in a 4-3 ruling a November 1997 decision by Superior Court Judge Hiller Zobel, who reduced the second-degree murder verdict in Woodward's case to involuntary manslaughter, and reduced her sentence to the 279 days she spent in a Framingham, Massachusetts prison.

Hours after their ruling was released, the Deborah and Sunil Eappen, the parents of the child who died in Woodward's care, filed a wrongful-death suit against Woodward.

Watch the verdict delivered by the jury.

Download Realplayer

"The purpose of this lawsuit is to ensure that Louise Woodward does not become a millionaire because she killed an eight-month-old baby," said Eappen attorney Frederic Ellis.

Under Massachusetts law, Zobel was able to reduce the verdict to a lesser charge. Prosecutors had wanted Woodward convicted of murder and sentenced to at least 15-20 years.

Under the original October 30, 1997 verdict, Woodward was given a life sentence, with parole possible after 15 years, for killing Matthew Eappen, the baby son of Newton, Massachusetts doctors Sunil and Deborah Eappen. The Eappens hired Woodward to look after Matthew and their other son, Brendan.

The majority opinion in the appeal decision maintained that Zobel was within his rights to reduce the verdict and his decision was legal.

"We conclude that the judge acted within his discretion in determining that a conviction of manslaughter was more consonant with justice than a conviction of murder," wrote Justice Margaret Marshall in the majority opinion.

The four concurring justices criticized Zobel for not granting a prosecution request during trial to let the jury consider manslaughter charges: "As far as we are aware, no jurisdiction that has considered the issue has allowed a defendant to veto a lesser included offense instruction properly requested by the prosecution."

But they said that the error did not ultimately deny Woodward a fair trial because Zobel acted within his powers and "did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the jury verdict" was too severe.

The three dissenting justices in the appeal decision had qualms with Woodward's lenient sentence. They also wrote that Woodward's decision, at her lawyers' urging, not to let the jury consider manslaughter charges was cause for another Superior Court judge to reconsider her sentence. During the trial, her attorneys insisted on either a murder conviction or an acquittal.

"Woodward brought the result on herself," wrote Justice John Greany of her original murder conviction.

Woodward's lawyers said they were both "disappointed and relieved" by the decision.

"We recognize that there are degrees of injustice and that the outcome of this case, we recognize, could have been much worse as an injustice," said attorney Andrew Good. "A murder conviction would have been a grave miscarriage of justice, even more grave than the miscarriage of justice involved in the manslaughter sentence."

Woodward was "disappointed that she was not acquitted," he said.

"She's going to go to school and try to resume her life," said Harvey Silverglate, another lead member of Woodward's legal team.

They said she would return home as soon as possible.

They also said they hope to convene an independent review team of scientists to re-examine key medical and forensic evidence in Woodward's case. They maintained that a pre-existing injury was the cause of Matthew Eappen's death and that anyone handling him would have caused a fatal injury.

"We do think that eventually the scientific truth of this case will prevail where it counts," said Silverglate.

The dissenting justices also criticized Zobel for turning down the prosecution request to include manslaughter as a possible verdict.

"The judge's error created a deep structural flaw in the trial," they said, "resulting in a sense of unease that permeated the proceedings that followed."

With the high court's decision, Woodward's original sentence will stand and she is free to return to her hometown of Elton, England. She had been required to remain in the U.S. pending the outcome of the court's decision and her passport was held by the court.

Both sides appealed the case, and the Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments March 9.

Defense attorney Andrew Good had asked the seven justices to overturn Zobel's decision and have Woodward acquitted. Good argued that Matthew Eappen, whom Woodward was convicted of killing, had pre-existing head injuries which likely caused his death. If that wasn't plausible, argued Good, she deserved a new trial because the defense had not had full access to medical evidence collected by the state.

Prosecutors argued that Zobel had overstepped his legal powers in reducing the conviction and sentence and that Woodward had been given a fair trial. They appeared partially, if not fully satisfied, by the appeal decision.

"The truth of this case and always will be that Louise Woodward is responsible for his death," said Middlesex County District Attorney Thomas Reilly, whose office prosecuted the case. "I respect that decision and I accept that decision. I do remain troubled by the sentence in this case."

In recent weeks, Woodward legal team found itself in the spotlight once again after one of her lawyers, Elaine Whitfield Sharp, was arrested by Massachusetts state police on drunk driving charges. The arresting trooper claimed Sharp told him she thought Woodward was guilty.

Sharp counter-charged that she never made such a statement and was being framed by police for her work in lawsuits against them. The rest of Woodward's defense team quickly distanced themselves from Sharp and announced that Sharp was no longer on the case.

The decision will likely put to rest much of the infighting between Woodward's lawyers, supporters and parents, including recent squabbles over the use of her legal fund. Reacting to the decision, Silverglate seemed relieved to close the door on the legal portion of the case.

"This case was not fun for anybody," he said.

--Jon Bonné