The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to review the case of Charles M. McCrory, an Alabama man who has been imprisoned for decades for a murder conviction based on suspect bite mark evidence. McCrory was found guilty of the 1985 murder of his wife, Julie Bonds, who was discovered beaten to death in her residence. Key testimony against McCrory came from a forensic odontologist who later recanted his original statement linking the victim’s bite marks to McCrory’s teeth, citing advancements in bite mark analysis that disprove the earlier conclusions.
Legal advocates from the Innocence Project and the Southern Center for Human Rights, who are representing McCrory, had appealed to the Supreme Court after an Alabama court denied McCrory’s request for a new trial. The Supreme Court decided not to review the case, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressing concerns about convictions obtained through flawed scientific evidence and the limitations of current post-conviction avenues for addressing such cases.
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals previously rejected McCrory’s plea for a new trial, asserting that the outcome of the original trial in 1985 would likely have been the same even with updated forensic standards on bite mark evidence. The Innocence Project has highlighted at least 36 individuals who have been erroneously convicted due to flawed bite mark evidence.
Despite maintaining his innocence and lacking physical evidence linking him to the crime, McCrory was sentenced to life in prison following testimony from a forensic dentist hired by Bonds’ family. The forensic dentist later retracted his testimony, and additional experts contested the validity of the bite mark evidence. Despite an offer from the current district attorney to resentence McCrory to time served in return for a guilty plea, McCrory declined, refusing to admit to a crime he didn’t commit.
McCrory’s denial of parole in 2023 means he will not be eligible for parole again until 2028. The case underscores ongoing concerns about outdated forensic practices leading to wrongful convictions and the need for improved avenues for challenging flawed evidence in the justice system.
