The Louisiana man, Jimmie Duncan, spent nearly three decades on death row before he was freed on bail following a court ruling that found the forensic evidence used to convict him scientifically indefensible. His release came after a judge overturned his conviction and granted him bail, highlighting the longstanding issues with the reliability of forensic evidence in criminal trials.
Jimmie Duncan was sentenced to death in 1998 for the alleged rape and drowning of his girlfriend’s 23-month-old daughter, Haley Oliveaux. The case was long mired in controversy, with forensic testimony playing a central role in securing his conviction. The court’s ruling in April found that the expert testimony—particularly regarding bite-mark analysis—was unreliable and that the toddler’s death appeared more consistent with accidental drowning rather than foul play.
Judge Alvin Sharp, in his April ruling, emphasized that the presumption of guilt was not strong, citing new evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing the previous year and Duncan’s lack of prior criminal history. The judge’s decision to grant bail was met with objections from the Louisiana Attorney General, Liz Murrill, who, as a Republican, has pushed for faster executions. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court allowed the district court to rule on the bail request, paving the way for Duncan’s release.
Duncan was released after posting a $150,000 bond, and he plans to live with a relative in central Louisiana while his vacated conviction is reviewed by the state’s Supreme Court. The case also drew attention from the victim’s mother, Statham, who expressed that she now believes her daughter did not die at Duncan’s hands. She criticized the forensic methods used, stating they ‘destroyed’ her family’s and Duncan’s lives.
The use of bite-mark analysis in this case and others has been widely criticized by legal experts as ‘junk science,’ with numerous wrongful convictions attributed to flawed forensic testimony. The Innocence Project’s attorney M. Chris Fabricant highlighted the continued use of such evidence, stating it remains a prejudicial form of flawed forensic testimony.
Despite the court’s ruling, prosecutors are still seeking to reinstate Duncan’s conviction, citing the original 1994 grand jury indictment. The case also brings attention to Louisiana’s history of wrongful convictions, with more than 200 death row inmates exonerated since 1973. Louisiana has one of the highest rates of wrongful convictions in the country, with the last exoneration in the Bayou State occurring in 2016.
As the Louisiana Supreme Court reviews Duncan’s case, the ruling underscores the ongoing challenges in the justice system related to forensic reliability and wrongful convictions. The case serves as a reminder of the need for reforms in the use of forensic evidence and the broader implications for those wrongfully convicted in the U.S.