In a case that highlights broader systemic issues in the American justice system, the United States Supreme Court recently declined to review a controversial Alabama murder conviction. At this stage, the case of McCrory v. Alabama has been tumultuous for a man who continues to maintain his innocence. The increasing public attention directed towards the challenges defendants face when seeking exonerations is creating legislative pressure for reform, offering hope for a more just future.

On May 31, 1985, Julie Bonds, the wife of Charles McCrory, was found dead and beaten in her home. At the time, Bonds and McCrory were estranged, making McCrory a prime suspect for investigators. At trial, an expert testified that two bite marks found on Bonds’ body matched McCrory’s dental impressions, implicating him of the crime. This evidence played a significant role in McCrory’s conviction, leading to a life sentence.

Although McCrory’s conviction seemed settled, the expert later recanted his testimony, acknowledging the forensic limitations of bite marks as evidence. As forensic science has advanced, scientists have begun to doubt the reliability of bite mark evidence, suggesting that such evidence cannot definitively prove an individual’s involvement in an offense.

Despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear McCrory’s case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a statement casting light on the broader issue reflected in the Court’s denial. Justice Sotomayor acknowledged the overwhelming number of exonerees later found innocent due to unreliable forensic testimony at the time of their trial, urging legislators to reform the system to provide inmates with better avenues to challenge convictions based on outdated scientific methods. This urgent need for reform is underscored by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ ruling on the same matter, finding that McCrory had failed to demonstrate that his trial outcome would have changed under modern forensic guidelines for bite mark evidence. This decision further highlights the difficulties defendants face when seeking to overturn potentially wrongful convictions on the basis of debunked forensic methods.

On the positive side of this issue, progress has been made in recent years, suggesting a possible shift in the treatment of defendants convicted through disproven scientific testimony. In 2020, a Florida man was exonerated after serving 37 years for a conviction that relied on bite mark evidence. The Innocence Project, a group which spearheads efforts to exonerate defendants like McCrory, believes at least 36 individuals have been wrongfully convicted on bite mark evidence alone, quantifying the impact of relying on flawed scientific methods to sustain convictions.

McCrory’s own case, however, has a less optimistic outlook for the coming years. Although McCrory was offered a plea deal, allowing for resentencing which would release McCrory from prison, McCrory refused the deal, continuing to maintain his innocence. Denied parole in 2023 and denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, McCrory does not face further parole eligibility until 2028, illustrating the devastating price of his commitment to his innocence. As forensic scientific practices continue to evolve, McCrory’s case underscores the deeper importance of maintaining up-to-date legal standards, and working to ensure that all criminal defendants receive the fairest possible trial.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.