A Louisiana man, Jimmie Duncan, has been freed on bail after nearly 30 years on death row following a ruling that the forensic evidence used to convict him was not scientifically defensible. The judge determined that the bite-mark analysis, a widely discredited forensic method, was unreliable and that the toddler’s death appeared consistent with accidental drowning.
Duncan’s release comes months after a state judge ruled that the evidence prosecutors used to secure the conviction was unreliable and rooted in discredited bite-mark analysis. Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Alvin Sharp tossed the conviction in April, concluding that the expert testimony presented at trial was not scientifically defensible and that the toddler’s death appeared consistent with an accidental drowning. The ruling highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding the use of forensic techniques that have led to numerous wrongful convictions across the United States. Duncan’s attorneys have emphasized the importance of the ruling, stating it provides clear and convincing evidence of his factual innocence. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican who has pushed to speed up executions, objected to Duncan’s release, calling for him to remain in custody until the Louisiana Supreme Court makes a decision. The case has sparked a broader debate about the reliability of forensic science in criminal trials and the potential for wrongful convictions.
Duncan was one of 55 people on death row in Louisiana at the state prison known as Angola. Louisiana carried out its first execution in 15 years earlier this year. During last week’s bail hearing, the victim’s mother stunned the courtroom when she said she now believes Duncan did not kill her daughter. She told the judge that the child, who had a history of seizures, likely drowned accidentally.
Statham said her daughter