Thursday, November 12, 2026

November 12: Sam Hallam: UK: "Someone to Blame." New podcast on this troubling UK case of Identification - and so much more - gone terribly wrong; No evidence, no CCTV footage, and he'd heard that witnesses who claimed to have seen him at the scene had changed their story. Oh, yes. No compensation, Even to this day. As Simon Hattingstone reports in the Guardian: "In court, the prosecution called two witnesses who had placed Hallam at the scene in statements given to the police. One of the girls who had confronted him in the street said she had seen him walking away from the fight, but under cross-examination she admitted that she couldn’t be sure it was Hallam. A friend of the victim, she said that somebody had mentioned Hallam’s name and she “just wanted someone to blame”. In 2012, a play was made about Hallam’s case called Someone to Blame."


Podcast Episode: October 17, 2026: Wrongly Convicted: The case of Sam Hallam and the fight for justice. UK true crime podcast: 


-------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: (Guardian): "Did Hallam think the campaign to free him would be successful? “By now I was not fully confident I was going to go home. I couldn’t be after everything that happened to me. I’d already been arrested, charged, convicted and lost an appeal.” His first appeal, a year after conviction, was on the grounds of lack of evidence and witnesses changing their story at trial. The appeal court judges believed that the witnesses had been telling the truth initially despite what they said in court."

------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: (Guardian): "A month after his father’s death, astonishing information was uncovered. Although the police had taken Hallam’s phone for evidence, they had not bothered to search through it. The new investigation by Thames Valley police did the basic work that the Metropolitan police failed to do in the first place. The phone contained photos that Hallam had taken at his grandmother’s house on the afternoon of the murder and photos of him with his father at the local pub in the evening. Neither Hallam’s father nor his grandmother had remembered this, making Winstone’s point about alibis all the more pertinent. His phone also revealed that he and Harrington had been playing football that week – but one night later. Finally, the phone showed that while his co-defendants had been in touch with each other multiple times just before the incident, Hallam had spoken to only one of them over a three-month period. The campaign to free him uncovered nine witnesses who said he was not at the scene."

----------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: (Guardian):  "Hallam says he will only feel free once the government accepts that he deserves compensation. He has now been to the court of appeal twice, and to the supreme court. In July he went to the European court of human rights, supported by Foot and the eminent civil rights lawyer Marcia Willis Stewart; they expect the judgment next year. “This happened to me in 2004. I’m still going to court for the same case 19 years later." (Publisher's note: He lost in the European Court and remains uncompensated to this day. HL); 

-----------------------------------------------------

STORY: "At 17, I was jailed for a murder I didn’t commit – and spent seven life-changing years in prison," by Simon Hattenstone, published by The Guardian, on November 7, 2023. (Simon Hattenstone is a features writer for the Guardian.)

The first Sam Hallam heard of the crime that would cost him seven years of his life was when two girls approached him in the street. They told him that they knew what had happened – there had been a street brawl two days earlier in east London involving about 40 people and he had attacked a young man who was now dead. Hallam, then 17 and with no criminal convictions, was bewildered. He hadn’t even been there, let alone attacked the victim, a popular 21-year-old trainee chef called Essayas Kassahun. It worried him enough to ask his brother whether he should talk to the police. His brother told him it was just a groundless rumour, and advised him that there was no need to go to the police but he should steer clear of the area.

It was a week after the incident in October 2004 when four or five police officers turned up at his mother’s flat. He told them that he knew why they were there and that it must be a mix up. He was arrested and taken to Belgravia police station. “That was devastating for me,” Hallam says. But he wasn’t worried about the outcome. He simply wasn’t there. He would explain everything, tell them what he was doing and be released in a couple of hours.

But that didn’t happen. It turned out he was mistaken about his alibi – he had said he thought he’d been playing football with his friend Timothy Harrington, but Harrington told the police he’d not seen him that week. The police said he had deliberately provided a fake alibi. He was held at the station for two days, then charged and remanded to Feltham young offender institution, where he spent a year. “I got charged and that was more devastating. Then I got remanded and that was even more devastating. It was just devastating event after devastating event.” What kept him going was the knowledge that his case would come to trial and he would be cleared. There was no evidence, no CCTV footage, and he’d heard that witnesses who claimed to have seen him at the scene had changed their story. 

Eight people stood trial for the murder of Kassahun. The jury at the Old Bailey heard that the attack was an act of revenge by a group of youths, known as the Hoxton Biker Boys because they rode BMX bikes, against another group who lived a mile away in Whitecross. The murder was a tragedy in multiple ways. Kassahun, whose fatal head injuries were caused by a knife or a baseball bat with a screw protruding at one end, was not the target of the attack. He had simply tried to save a friend who had apparently “stared down” one of the group in an earlier incident.

In court, the prosecution called two witnesses who had placed Hallam at the scene in statements given to the police. One of the girls who had confronted him in the street said she had seen him walking away from the fight, but under cross-examination she admitted that she couldn’t be sure it was Hallam. A friend of the victim, she said that somebody had mentioned Hallam’s name and she “just wanted someone to blame”. In 2012, a play was made about Hallam’s case called Someone to Blame.

The second witness was also a friend of the victim. In his first police statement he described a white boy on a silver BMX who pulled out a baseball bat with a protruding screw. Hallam did not even own a bike at the time. This witness later gave a second statement also naming Hallam. But in court he repeatedly said he had not seen the attacker’s face because he was wearing a hoodie or top wrapped tight around his face, and all he knew was that he had blondish hair. (Hallam’s hair is brown.) When asked why he had named Hallam, he said he was upset because his friend had just died and he’d been given Hallam’s name by the first witness.

Harrington, called as a witness for the prosecution, told the court he had made a mistake and now thought he actually had been with Hallam on the night of the murder. The prosecution then treated him as a hostile witness, cross-examining him and exposing his inconsistencies. Hallam still believed he couldn’t be found guilty – the case against him was nonsense. But after seven weeks he was convicted of murder, conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm and violent disorder and sentenced to a minimum of 12 years in prison. Twenty-year-old Bullabek Ringbiong was also convicted of murder. “My legs collapsed after the first verdict,” Hallam says. “I can’t remember anything else that was said. That night I started to process it in Feltham. I was thinking: I’m going to be here for a long time.”

Eighteen years later, we meet at the offices of Appeal, a charity and law practice that fights miscarriages of justice. He is accompanied by his lawyer Matt Foot, a co-director of Appeal. Hallam is wearing a smart jacket, has a sharp haircut and at 36 could pass for a man in his mid-20s. He admits he is young for his age – he never got the opportunity to grow up as he should have done.

As a 17-year-old in jail, he was small and naive, the perfect target for bullying. “I was a kid, just out of school. No life experience at all. People saw my vulnerability when I got there. That made it worse for me because they preyed on the vulnerable. People take advantage of that, try to get stuff out of you – for example in the canteen. I got beaten up a lot.”

How did he cope? He didn’t initially, he says. For the first time in his life, he experienced depression, though he didn’t know what it was back then. “I wouldn’t eat, wouldn’t get of my bed, wouldn’t wash.” Then he started to fight back – literally. That was the only way. “I got jumped in the first two months I was there, and that’s when people said: ‘You need to say sorry,’ and I was like: ‘I’m not going to say sorry for being jumped!’ Once I stood my ground nothing happened to me after that. If you give in to them, they’ve got you where they want you.”

Hallam had another advantage – his fellow prisoners believed he was innocent. Some of those who had been at the fight that ended in Kassahun’s murder were now in jail alongside him. They knew Hallam hadn’t been present and spread the word. Over time, he made friends. Initially he had assumed his fellow inmates were “the worst of the worst” but his opinion changed. “Many of them committed bad crimes but were good people. You can’t judge them for the crime they committed otherwise you wouldn’t have anyone to talk to. If I hadn’t had other people around me when I was in there, I wouldn’t have been able to survive. I got through because of the friends I made in there.”

It’s not surprising that people looked out for him. Hallam is likable, ebullient, polite and funny. Whenever he gets the chance to laugh (telling me how his nine-year-old son Thierry, named after the Arsenal legend Thierry Henry, has just become a Manchester City fan; or explaining that his cat Jéff’s name is pronounced with a soft J and has an acute accent because he looks French) he explodes into a joyous cackle.

Away from prison, family and friends fought for him, led by the miscarriage of justice campaigner Paul May, whose investigations helped get the convictions of the Birmingham Six and Bridgewater Four overturned. They did all they could to keep the case in the news. When Hallam was moved to Aylesbury prison in Buckinghamshire, they turned up outside the prison in an open-top bus to celebrate his birthday. “That didn’t go down well at the prison. It rained that day, too!”

The actor Ray Winstone, an uncle of his best friend, fronted an episode of ITV’s Tonight programme in 2007, insisting Hallam was innocent. He interviewed witness after witness who confirmed Hallam wasn’t at the scene and explained how easy it is to get your alibi wrong.

The thing is, Foot says, Hallam didn’t even say he was definitely playing football with his friend. “Sam said in the statement: ‘I believe I was playing football with my friend Timmy.’ I don’t think it was a bad statement, but then he’s portrayed as a liar by the prosecution.”

Did Hallam think the campaign to free him would be successful? “By now I was not fully confident I was going to go home. I couldn’t be after everything that happened to me. I’d already been arrested, charged, convicted and lost an appeal.” His first appeal, a year after conviction, was on the grounds of lack of evidence and witnesses changing their story at trial. The appeal court judges believed that the witnesses had been telling the truth initially despite what they said in court.

At the age of 21, Hallam was moved to Bullingdon prison in Oxfordshire. He says the environment was less violent than at previous jails. “People took me under their wing. Older men in their 40s and 50s such as my friend Bez, who’s 55 now. Me and him did everything together – we got a job together and went to the gym together.” He got an NVQ Level 3 in printing and worked as a lithographic printer for three years in prison. The routine – food, work, gym – helped him get through the days.

But it was a struggle. While he was in prison both his grandmothers died. In October 2010, Hallam hit rock bottom when his father, Terry, took his own life aged 56. For Hallam, the timing made the tragedy even worse. The previous day, the Independent had reported that Hallam was likely to be cleared at a second appeal; his father was found with the newspaper cutting in his pocket. Sam’s mother, Wendy Cohen, has said that the suicide was a result of the pressures of dealing with their son’s wrongful imprisonment. Hallam was told of his father’s death by the prison chaplain and he attended the funeral. “He was breaking his heart and couldn’t even wipe his eyes or nose, because he was handcuffed both sides,” Wendy told me in 2013.

Hallam can’t find the words when I ask him about his father’s suicide today. “Just confusing … confusing … Yeah.” He comes to an anguished stop. “I don’t know if I’ll be able to talk about this. Sorry.”

A month after his father’s death, astonishing information was uncovered. Although the police had taken Hallam’s phone for evidence, they had not bothered to search through it. The new investigation by Thames Valley police did the basic work that the Metropolitan police failed to do in the first place.

The phone contained photos that Hallam had taken at his grandmother’s house on the afternoon of the murder and photos of him with his father at the local pub in the evening. Neither Hallam’s father nor his grandmother had remembered this, making Winstone’s point about alibis all the more pertinent. His phone also revealed that he and Harrington had been playing football that week – but one night later. Finally, the phone showed that while his co-defendants had been in touch with each other multiple times just before the incident, Hallam had spoken to only one of them over a three-month period. The campaign to free him uncovered nine witnesses who said he was not at the scene.

On 16 May 2012, the case finally returned to the court of appeal for a second time. In the morning Hallam’s team, led by Foot and barrister Henry Blaxland QC, argued that the convictions were unsafe. Immediately after lunch, at 2pm, the prosecution announced it would not contest the appeal.

“It was a very dramatic moment,” Foot says. “The whole of the public gallery just went ‘Yeeeeaaaaaaaah!’, like some football roar. I’ve never heard anything like it in court – a mix of anger and relief – and it went on for ages.” He smiles at the memory and looks at Hallam. “Do you remember?”

“Yeah. Just by his body language, I knew what the prosecution barrister was going to say,” Hallam says. “The judge asked if I knew what was going on. I was aware, but I was just in bewilderment really.”

His convictions were overturned. Within a week he had found himself a job and seemed to be coping well. But gradually the enormity of what had happened began to sink in. He had spent seven years imprisoned for a murder he didn’t commit; his father had killed himself while he was in prison; he no longer knew how to function in the free world. Often, he wished he was back in prison where life was less complicated and everybody appeared to be on his side. “This is the weird thing. When I talk to friends who I was inside with, often we’re laughing: ‘Do you remember this, do you remember that?’” There was a camaraderie? “Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah.” He asks if there is something wrong with a person who misses prison.

Then he was hit with another injustice. By 2014 he still hadn’t been paid compensation for his wrongful conviction. Although the CPS had thrown in the towel at the appeal, justice secretary Chris Grayling had refused any payment under a new test that required proof of innocence “beyond all reasonable doubt” – an impossibly high bar for almost anyone in Hallam’s situation to clear. His legal team is challenging the test on the basis that it breaches the presumption of innocence.

Despite having his conviction quashed, he has come to feel that the establishment does not really believe he was innocent. The money would be useful, he says – he lost seven years of income in prison, he’s not in a fit state to work now, he needs money for therapy and he has to support Thierry. But, he says, the compensation is about so much more than money. “For me it’s more an acceptance of the wrongdoing and what they need to put right.”

After his release, Hallam’s mental health deteriorated. His post-traumatic stress disorder intensified, he suffered from depression again, became withdrawn, struggled with relationships and was unable to work. “I’ve got really low,” he says. “I have never tried to take my life but I’ve had suicidal thoughts.” Sometimes he only feels understood by people who have also suffered a miscarriage of justice. He mentions Paddy Hill of the Birmingham Six and Patrick Maguire, who was jailed at 14 as part of the Maguire Seven – both had their convictions overturned in 1991. “I can speak to them because I know they’ve been through it.” Last year he went to Scotland to meet members of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Mojo), a support group. “We had a group therapy session and you just feel a connection with everyone there.”

But back home, he says, he has become dysfunctional in ways that he didn’t even realise until it was pointed out to him. “You’ve painted your room grey, like a cell, haven’t you?” Foot says.

“Yes, and I sleep in my living room. I never go to bed. My friend said to me: ‘You’ve recreated that environment to put yourself at peace because that’s become a part of you.’”

But it’s more complicated than that. He has created a cell that he’s desperate to escape from. “I didn’t lock my front door for six months. I took my doors off, too. I did it without noticing.”

Hallam says he will only feel free once the government accepts that he deserves compensation. He has now been to the court of appeal twice, and to the supreme court. In July he went to the European court of human rights, supported by Foot and the eminent civil rights lawyer Marcia Willis Stewart; they expect the judgment next year. “This happened to me in 2004. I’m still going to court for the same case 19 years later.”

To go through what Hallam has been through and to retain your humanity takes some doing. I could imagine him going around the country educating people about miscarriages of justice, I tell him. He smiles. “In the long run that’s what I want to do. If I can possibly make something positive out of what I’ve been through, talking and stuff.” But first of all, he says, he’s got a fight to win. “Until this whole court thing is over I can’t move on.”

In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on freephone 116 123, or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In the US, you can call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on 988, chat on 988lifeline.org, or text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis counselor. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at befrienders.org"

The entire story can be read at: 

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

November 12: Charles McCrory: McCrory; Junk bite-mark 'science.' Part 2: A classic report on this still unresolved junk bite-mark 'science case, in which journalists Liliana Segura and Jordan Smith note that "there's a junk science crisis in US criminal convictions - and point out that US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer "calls it out' in this Alabama case... "Sotomayor joined her colleagues in declining to review the case, writing separately to explain. “I vote to deny this petition because due process claims like McCrory’s have yet to percolate sufficiently through the federal courts,” she wrote. “Legislatures concerned with wrongful convictions based on faulty science, however, need not wait for this Court to address a constitutional remedy.”



QUOTE OF THE DAY:  (2024):“We appreciate Justice Sotomayor recognizing that Charles McCrory was convicted based on bitemark evidence that science has condemned and that the expert who testified against him has recanted,” McCrory’s lawyers wrote in an email to The Intercept. “But today an innocent man remains in prison, where he has been for almost 40 years. We will continue to fight for Mr. McCrory in the federal courts and call upon the State of Alabama to rectify this injustice.""


-------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "She notes that the “wholesale reevaluation” of forensics began with a congressionally mandated review by the National Academy of Sciences, which in 2009 issued a landmark report calling out nearly all forensic practices as scientifically unsound. The report included harsh criticism of bite-mark evidence. In 2016, those concerns were reiterated in a bombshell report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a body that provides nonbinding recommendations to the U.S. president. The advisory council noted that bite-mark analysis would never likely pass scientific muster. Since then, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has issued its own exhaustive report finding the same."

-----------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "But just because some people were questioning bite-mark evidence in the early 2000s doesn’t mean that the scientific consensus had changed by then. It had not. And as The Intercept has reported, the battle over bite-mark evidence and other forms of junk science, continues to this day. This makes it difficult for people like McCrory who seek to challenge their convictions based on new evidence. “Because science evolves slowly rather than in conclusive bursts,” Sotomayor wrote, it is hard to pinpoint when the science has truly changed and thus, when the issue should be raised on appeal. “Unlike a murder weapon left in an abandoned warehouse, forensic science does not lie around waiting for sudden discovery.” And when scientific evidence is debunked, it’s a unique and ground-shaking event that needs addressing. “Evidence that an entire mode of forensic analysis has no scientific basis, however, is of a different category from evidence that might call into question a witness’s credibility or motive to testify.”

----------------------------------------------------


PASSSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: “Sotomayor’s concurrence is the first time any Supreme Court Justice has recognized the appalling legacy of wrongful convictions attributable to the use of junk science in criminal cases.” Sotomayor’s statement is a big deal, said Fabricant, who also wrote a book on junk forensic science. “Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence is the first time any Supreme Court Justice has recognized the appalling legacy of wrongful convictions attributable to the use of junk science in criminal cases, and the failure of lower courts to take remedial action to address these all too common miscarriages of justice.”

-------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "There's a junk science crisis in criminal convictions. Sonia Sotomayor calls it out in Alabama bite-mark case," by Liliana Segura and Jordan Smith (Two extraordinary journalists  who report on America's criminal justice system)  published by The Intercept, on July 10, 2024;

GIST: Is there a  constitutional right not to be convicted based on junk science? For years, the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to directly grapple with that question — so much so that Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently said that Congress and state legislatures should tackle the problem now instead of waiting on the courts to fix it.

On July 2, the court unanimously declined to review the case of Charles McCrory, who was convicted in Alabama in 1985 for the murder of his wife, based almost exclusively on bogus bite-mark testimony. Bite-mark analysis has been roundly discredited by scientists and, to date, is behind at least 39 wrongful convictions or indictments.

Bite-mark evidence is among a host of problematic, scientifically questionable forensic practices widely used in the criminal legal system. While a number of forensic practitioners have acknowledged the problem and sought to get their disciplines on firmer scientific footing, the law has not caught up. Ostensibly, courts are supposed to vet forensic evidence before trial, though because judges are not scientists — and most lack any science training — this is rarely effective, and they often allow even the most questionable science into evidence.

For people like McCrory subsequently convicted based on junk science, there is often no straightforward way for the courts to revisit or correct old cases based on outdated and debunked forensic practices. The law favors finality, so once someone is sent to prison, it becomes difficult to challenge a conviction based on junk science, and judges often deny appeals based on procedural matters without ever engaging with those flaws.
While the Supreme Court has occasionally acknowledged this problem, among her colleagues, Sotomayor was alone in calling out the crisis it has created. In a statement alongside the denial of McCrory’s appeal, Sotomayor described his case as a symptom of a broader problem.

“Hundreds if not thousands of innocent people may currently be incarcerated despite a modern consensus that the central piece of evidence at their trials lacked any scientific basis.”

“This petition raises difficult questions about the adequacy of current postconviction remedies to correct a conviction secured by what we now know was faulty science,” Sotomayor wrote. “Hundreds if not thousands of innocent people may currently be incarcerated despite a modern consensus that the central piece of evidence at their trials lacked any scientific basis.”

To date, a handful of states have created a direct avenue of appeal for defendants convicted based on junk or debunked science. Texas was first, and Sotomayor notes that the statute has been used to exonerate a man named Steven Mark Chaney, who was convicted on bogus bite-mark evidence. California has a similar statute, which was used to exonerate Bill Richards, also convicted on discredited bite-mark analysis.

“These statutes,” Sotomayor wrote, “create an efficient avenue for innocent people convicted based on forensic science that the scientific community has now largely repudiated.”

A Flimsy Piece of Evidence


Throughout the nearly four decades since his wife’s murder, McCrory has maintained his innocence. In 2022, The Intercept published a lengthy investigation into McCrory’s case, detailing the flaws in the state’s case against him. The case has since attracted additional attention and media coverage, highlighting the problem of junk forensic science. 

Julie McCrory’s body was found inside her home in Andalusia, Alabama, on the morning of May 31, 1985. Her head was bashed in, and she’d been repeatedly stabbed in the chest. The couple’s young son Chad, then 3 years old, was found unharmed in his crib. Police quickly zeroed in on McCrory as their only suspect: He and Julie were separated, and McCrory had been having an affair. At trial, the theory seemed to be that he’d savagely murdered Julie to be free from her.

The police investigation was cursory at best. Detectives searched McCrory’s home and car and found nothing to connect him to the bloody crime. Meanwhile, they ignored some evidence altogether, including two bedroom windows that were found open, but which investigators failed to dust for fingerprints. Police also failed to consider an alternate suspect, a man who worked at an excavating company bordering the McCrorys’ backyard and who, just weeks after Julie’s murder, committed a home invasion rape of another local woman. He was convicted and sent to prison for that crime.

Ultimately, the state latched onto a single piece of physical evidence against McCrory: a pair of small indentations on the back of Julie’s right arm, which prosecutors concluded was a bite-mark made by McCrory’s allegedly distinctive dentition.

To sell this theory, the state employed famed forensic dentist Richard Souviron, a star prosecution witness in the recent and sensational trial of serial killer Ted Bundy. Although Souviron initially said he couldn’t definitively link the two marks on Julie’s arm to McCrory, at trial he was unequivocal that they did indeed match.

More than three decades later, Souviron recanted his testimony. He provided an affidavit to McCrory’s lawyers, Chris Fabricant of the Innocence Project and Mark Loudon-Brown of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who presented it at a 2021 evidentiary hearing in Andalusia. “As a forensic odontologist I no longer believe the individualized teeth marks comparison testimony I offered in his case was reliable or proper,” Souviron wrote. “I no longer believe, as I did at the time of trial, that there is a valid scientific basis for concluding that the injury found on the skin of the victim in this case, assuming that the injury is in fact teeth marks, could be ‘matched’ or otherwise connected to a specific individual, such as Mr. McCrory.”

Fabricant and Loudon-Brown also presented testimony from two leading forensic dentists who were once bite-mark true believers but now admitted that the discipline lacked any scientific underpinning and was not valid evidence. They agreed to testify for free, they told the court, because they felt they had a duty to correct the record. Dr. Cynthia Brzozowski, a veteran forensic dentist from New York, told the court that she felt an “ethical and civic responsibility” to testify in cases like McCrory’s.

In response, prosecutors presented no evidence and instead insisted that McCrory was guilty based on the same case presented at trial, including the bite mark — which they now termed “teeth marks” — implying that this was a separate and valid discipline. It is not. Regardless, prosecutor Grace Jeter argued that, even if Souviron had not testified for the state, jurors could have looked at the marks on Julie’s body and the dental molds taken from McCrory and decided for themselves that the wounds were caused by McCrory’s teeth. In other words, the jury would have been free to engage in its own expert-free junk science.

In the end, Covington County Circuit Court Judge Lex Short agreed with the state, denying McCrory’s request for a new trial. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his decision. When McCrory’s lawyers asked the court to reconsider — in part because one of the justices had previously defended McCrory’s conviction while working as a prosecutor — the court simply reissued its opinion, complete with a typo that appeared in the original, along with a note saying that the judge had now recused herself.

McCrory’s team then appealed to the Supreme Court, which last week denied review.

In their petition to the high court, McCrory’s lawyers asked the justices to consider two questions: whether the right to due process precludes a judge from deliberating on the appeal of a case they’d previously worked on, and whether there is a “due process right not to be convicted based on forensic evidence later shown to be fundamentally unreliable.”

Sotomayor joined her colleagues in declining to review the case, writing separately to explain. “I vote to deny this petition because due process claims like McCrory’s have yet to percolate sufficiently through the federal courts,” she wrote. “Legislatures concerned with wrongful convictions based on faulty science, however, need not wait for this Court to address a constitutional remedy.”

She notes that the “wholesale reevaluation” of forensics began with a congressionally mandated review by the National Academy of Sciences, which in 2009 issued a landmark report calling out nearly all forensic practices as scientifically unsound. The report included harsh criticism of bite-mark evidence. In 2016, those concerns were reiterated in a bombshell report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a body that provides nonbinding recommendations to the U.S. president. The advisory council noted that bite-mark analysis would never likely pass scientific muster. Since then, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has issued its own exhaustive report finding the same.

For all intents and purposes, bite-mark evidence is dead — except in many courts, including in Alabama, which refuse to consider its status when evaluating appeals such as McCrory’s. In part, the problem is that statutes outlining post-conviction procedures were written prior to scientific advancements and do not contemplate the evisceration of an entire field of practice, leaving countless defendants convicted on junk science without any meaningful avenue to challenge their convictions.

Alabama’s prosecutors argue, first, that courts approved the use of bite-mark evidence in the 1980s, and so, in theory, it remains legitimate. Second, they argue that McCrory should have raised this issue years ago — back in 2002, in fact, when his lawyers first found a Newsweek article that questioned bite-mark evidence. In other words, their argument isn’t necessarily that bite-mark evidence is good or even valid, but rather, that Alabama law still recognizes the discipline, and there’s nothing new in McCrory’s appeals that changes that. Souviron’s affidavit recanting his testimony is too little, too late.

But just because some people were questioning bite-mark evidence in the early 2000s doesn’t mean that the scientific consensus had changed by then. It had not. And as The Intercept has reported, the battle over bite-mark evidence and other forms of junk science, continues to this day.

This makes it difficult for people like McCrory who seek to challenge their convictions based on new evidence. “Because science evolves slowly rather than in conclusive bursts,” Sotomayor wrote, it is hard to pinpoint when the science has truly changed and thus, when the issue should be raised on appeal. “Unlike a murder weapon left in an abandoned warehouse, forensic science does not lie around waiting for sudden discovery.”

And when scientific evidence is debunked, it’s a unique and ground-shaking event that needs addressing. “Evidence that an entire mode of forensic analysis has no scientific basis, however, is of a different category from evidence that might call into question a witness’s credibility or motive to testify.”

“Sotomayor’s concurrence is the first time any Supreme Court Justice has recognized the appalling legacy of wrongful convictions attributable to the use of junk science in criminal cases.”

Sotomayor’s statement is a big deal, said Fabricant, who also wrote a book on junk forensic science. “Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence is the first time any Supreme Court Justice has recognized the appalling legacy of wrongful convictions attributable to the use of junk science in criminal cases, and the failure of lower courts to take remedial action to address these all too common miscarriages of justice.”

Fabricant and Loudon-Brown, McCrory’s other lawyer, have filed an appeal in federal district court raising the same concerns they brought to the Supreme Court. While Alabama is arguing that the appeal should be tossed out, Sotomayor seems to be nodding to the district court to give McCrory’s case a thorough vetting.

“We appreciate Justice Sotomayor recognizing that Charles McCrory was convicted based on bitemark evidence that science has condemned and that the expert who testified against him has recanted,” McCrory’s lawyers wrote in an email to The Intercept. “But today an innocent man remains in prison, where he has been for almost 40 years. We will continue to fight for Mr. McCrory in the federal courts and call upon the State of Alabama to rectify this injustice.""

The entire commentary can be read at: 

bite-mark-supreme-court-sotomayor

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

Wednesday, November 11, 2026

November 11: Charles McCrory: Alabama; Part One: Junk bite mark 'science.' Liliana Segura and Jordan Smith (two extraordinary journalists who report on America's criminal justice system) note that prosecutors want to keep him in prison for his wife's murder - despite a judge saying their evidence is 'junk', noting that: "McCrory was 26 years old when he was accused of brutally killing his wife in the small town of Andalusia. He insisted he was innocent — and Grissett believed him. There was no evidence connecting McCrory to the crime; prosecutors seized on a supposed bite mark found on his wife’s body, which a state expert claimed to match to McCrory’s teeth. Grissett was never convinced by the so-called bite mark. At McCrory’s 1985 trial, he said, Grissett’s own dentist sat through the expert testimony and found it preposterous. “He says, ‘There’s no way that guy can say that,’ Grissett recalled. “I mean, anybody with common sense would know that.” In a September 21 ruling describing the case against McCrory as “thin,” Trump-appointed Judge R. Austin Huffaker Jr., zeroed in on this junk forensic science. Not only would the alleged bite mark not be allowed into evidence today, Huffaker wrote, bite-mark analysis itself “is grossly unreliable and unsupported by relevant scientific bodies. It amounts to nothing more than rank speculation.” Unless the state moves to retry him within the next six months, Huffaker concluded, McCrory must be released from prison."



QUOTE OF THE DAY: "As in McCrory’s case, Louisiana prosecutors have nevertheless continued to insist their case against Duncan is solid. And as in McCrory’s case, this has not gone over well with some judges. Earlier this year, Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Judge John Weimer wrote that bite-mark evidence “should be discarded and no longer have a place in the realm of forensic science.” “Long ago, some who were thought to have the best and brightest minds of that time endorsed ‘trial by water’ as a means of determining a person’s guilt or innocence. We now look back at those practices as asinine and absurd, since those who fell victim to those practices often did not survive, regardless of whether they were found guilty or innocent,” Weimer wrote. “Thankfully, as scientific knowledge evolved, there was a realization that these practices had no basis whatsoever in logic, reason, or the search for truth, and the practices were discarded.”

--------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE TWO OF THE DAY: "As the holidays approach, McCrory’s family remains hopeful that he will soon walk out of prison. His son Chad, who is now in his 40s, has attended a dozen parole hearings with the hope of one day seeing his father released. Grissett, McCrory’s former lawyer, reached out to Chad to share his hope that McCrory will finally come home. While memories have faded in the tight-knit community of Andalusia, many people remember McCrory’s case, he said. “Everybody sees this was junk science,” Grissett said. “You don’t have to be a scientist to understand that.” It’s “sad that it’s taken this long,” Grissett said. It haunts him that “somebody’s still out there who murdered this lady. And I’m afraid that they’re not gonna look into that.”

--------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "IN 2022, The Intercept published a lengthy investigation into McCrory’s case, detailing the flaws in the state’s conviction. The case attracted additional media coverage, highlighting the problem of junk forensic science. Despite the glaring problems with the evidence against McCrory, Alabama courts have routinely rejected his appeals and in 2023, the state’s parole board denied McCrory release."

-------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Still, after taking center stage at the Bundy trial, bite-mark analysis took off in the 1980s and ’90s and, despite not having any basis in actual science, made its way into courtrooms around the country, turning forensic dentists like Souviron into newsmaking, swashbuckling crime fighters. In the years that followed, however, bite-mark analysis was increasingly called into question and ultimately exposed as junk science, a subjective pattern-matching practice that has led to dozens of wrongful convictions. At least four of those, including McCrory’s, are cases in which Souviron served as the prosecution’s expert. In 2019, Souviron recanted his testimony in McCrory’s case, providing an affidavit to Fabricant and Loudon-Brown, who presented it at a 2021 evidentiary hearing in Andalusia. “As a forensic odontologist I no longer believe the individualized teeth marks comparison testimony I offered in his case was reliable or proper,” Souviron wrote. “I no longer believe, as I did at the time of trial, that there is a valid scientific basis for concluding that the injury found on the skin of the victim in this case, assuming that the injury is in fact teeth marks, could be ‘matched’ or otherwise connected to a specific individual, such as Mr. McCrory.”

--------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Despite the fact that their key witness had disavowed the evidence they used to send McCrory to prison for life, prosecutors fought to preserve their conviction. At the 2021 hearing, they insisted that McCrory was guilty, based on the same evidence they presented at trial. They recast the supposed bite mark as “teeth marks,” implying that, while bite-mark analysis may be discredited, the study of “teeth marks” is a separate and valid discipline. Even if Souviron had not testified for the state, they argued, jurors could have looked at photos of the marks on Julie’s body and the dental molds taken from McCrory and decided for themselves that McCrory inflicted the wounds. Covington County Circuit Court Judge Lex Short, who presided over the hearing, agreed with the prosecutor. So did the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld his ruling in favor of the state. But (Judge) Huffaker did not."

---------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Prosecutors want to keep a man in prison for his wife's murder - despite judge saying their evidence is junk," by Liliana Segura and Jordan Smith, published by The Intercept, on October 28, 2026. 

SUB-HEADING: "Slamming the bogus bite mark analysis that sent Charles McCrory to prison in 1985, a judge vacated his conviction"

GIST: "Alabama attorney Larry Grissettt was checking Facebook in late September when he saw a news story about a man he represented in a murder trial more than 40 years ago. According to the article, a federal judge had just vacated the conviction of that client, Charles McCrory.

Grissett was stunned. He later summed up his reaction: “Vindication.”

McCrory was 26 years old when he was accused of brutally killing his wife in the small town of Andalusia. He insisted he was innocent — and Grissett believed him. There was no evidence connecting McCrory to the crime; prosecutors seized on a supposed bite mark found on his wife’s body, which a state expert claimed to match to McCrory’s teeth.

Grissett was never convinced by the so-called bite mark. At McCrory’s 1985 trial, he said, Grissett’s own dentist sat through the expert testimony and found it preposterous. “He says, ‘There’s no way that guy can say that,’ Grissett recalled. “I mean, anybody with common sense would know that.”

In a September 21 ruling describing the case against McCrory as “thin,” Trump-appointed Judge R. Austin Huffaker Jr., zeroed in on this junk forensic science. Not only would the alleged bite mark not be allowed into evidence today, Huffaker wrote, bite-mark analysis itself “is grossly unreliable and unsupported by relevant scientific bodies. It amounts to nothing more than rank speculation.”

Unless the state moves to retry him within the next six months, Huffaker concluded, McCrory must be released from prison.

The ruling was not only momentous for McCrory, who has insisted on his innocence for more than four decades, but it also marked a new victory in the long legal battle against junk forensics — and the discredited discipline of bite-mark analysis specifically.

“Everybody sees this was junk science. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand that.”

Yet more than a month after the decision, McCrory remains behind bars with no sense of when he might walk out. Although his lawyers asked the court to free him on bond pending the state’s decision to release or retry him, the Alabama attorney general’s office filed a motion last week asking Huffaker to reconsider his order overturning the conviction. The state’s appeals will likely drag out McCrory’s ordeal through the holidays and into next year.

In a statement, McCrory’s current legal team praised Huffaker’s “explicit acknowledgment that criminal convictions based on discredited bitemark evidence cannot stand.” Mark Loudon-Brown, senior attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights, and Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation for the Innocence Project, said they are “grateful for the decision and look forward to continuing our fight to bring Mr. McCrory home.”

IN 2022, The Intercept published a lengthy investigation into McCrory’s case, detailing the flaws in the state’s conviction. The case attracted additional media coverage, highlighting the problem of junk forensic science. Despite the glaring problems with the evidence against McCrory, Alabama courts have routinely rejected his appeals and in 2023, the state’s parole board denied McCrory release.

Julie Bond McCrory’s body was found inside her home in Andalusia on May 31, 1985. Her head was bashed in, and she’d been repeatedly stabbed in the chest. The couple’s son Chad, then 3 years old, was found unharmed in his bed. Police quickly pointed to McCrory as their only suspect: He and Julie were separated, and McCrory had been having an affair. At trial, the theory seemed to be that he’d savagely murdered Julie to be free from her.

The police investigation was cursory at best. Detectives found no physical evidence to connect McCrory to the bloody crime. Meanwhile, they ignored some evidence altogether, including two windows in Julie’s bedroom that were found open, but which investigators failed to dust for fingerprints. Police also failed to consider an alternate suspect, a man who worked at an excavating company bordering the McCrorys’ backyard and who, just weeks after Julie’s murder, committed a home invasion rape of another local woman. He was convicted and sent to prison for that crime.

Ultimately, the state latched onto a single piece of physical evidence against McCrory: a pair of small indentations on the back of Julie’s right arm, which prosecutors concluded was a bite mark made by McCrory’s teeth.

To sell this theory, the state employed famed forensic dentist Richard Souviron, a star prosecution witness in the recent and sensational trial of serial killer Ted Bundy. Although Souviron initially said he couldn’t definitively link the two marks on Julie’s arm to McCrory’s teeth, at trial he was unequivocal that they matched.

Skin, with its malleability, is a terrible medium for accurately recording any injury.

Bite-mark analysis is based on a two-pronged foundation. First, that the shape and arrangement of our teeth are unique, like DNA, and second, that skin is a suitable substrate for recording this uniqueness. As it turns out, there’s no science backing either assertion. In fact, research into the discipline has routinely found the opposite — that human dentition is not unique and that skin, with its malleability, is a terrible medium for accurately recording any injury. This makes bite-mark analysis a random and entirely speculative practice.

Still, after taking center stage at the Bundy trial, bite-mark analysis took off in the 1980s and ’90s and, despite not having any basis in actual science, made its way into courtrooms around the country, turning forensic dentists like Souviron into newsmaking, swashbuckling crime fighters.

In the years that followed, however, bite-mark analysis was increasingly called into question and ultimately exposed as junk science, a subjective pattern-matching practice that has led to dozens of wrongful convictions. At least four of those, including McCrory’s, are cases in which Souviron served as the prosecution’s expert.

In 2019, Souviron recanted his testimony in McCrory’s case, providing an affidavit to Fabricant and Loudon-Brown, who presented it at a 2021 evidentiary hearing in Andalusia. “As a forensic odontologist I no longer believe the individualized teeth marks comparison testimony I offered in his case was reliable or proper,” Souviron wrote. “I no longer believe, as I did at the time of trial, that there is a valid scientific basis for concluding that the injury found on the skin of the victim in this case, assuming that the injury is in fact teeth marks, could be ‘matched’ or otherwise connected to a specific individual, such as Mr. McCrory.”

Despite the fact that their key witness had disavowed the evidence they used to send McCrory to prison for life, prosecutors fought to preserve their conviction. At the 2021 hearing, they insisted that McCrory was guilty, based on the same evidence they presented at trial. They recast the supposed bite mark as “teeth marks,” implying that, while bite-mark analysis may be discredited, the study of “teeth marks” is a separate and valid discipline. Even if Souviron had not testified for the state, they argued, jurors could have looked at photos of the marks on Julie’s body and the dental molds taken from McCrory and decided for themselves that McCrory inflicted the wounds.

Covington County Circuit Court Judge Lex Short, who presided over the hearing, agreed with the prosecutor. So did the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld his ruling in favor of the state. But Huffaker did not.

Huffaker took exception to the notion that analyzing “teeth marks” is somehow separate from bite-mark analysis. It is clear, he wrote, “that bitemark identification is based on analysis of individual teeth markings.”

But “most importantly, the state court unreasonably determined that, even without Dr. Souviron’s expert testimony, a reasonable jury could compare the bitemark evidence with McCrory’s dentition themselves and find that it belonged to McCrory,” Huffaker wrote. “This finding blinks reality in light of the evidence presented by McCrory at the postconviction evidentiary hearing.” In a footnote, he added that “if an expert could not testify about bitemark identification because it is junk science, a jury should not have been allowed to consider it either.”

MCCRORY IS NOT the only person who is still fighting for his freedom decades after being convicted based on discredited junk science. Last year, Chris Duncan was declared innocent nearly 30 years after being sent to Louisiana’s death row based on bogus bite-mark evidence. He was released one day before Thanksgiving. In his case, a video showed the state’s supposed bite-mark expert manufacturing the evidence that was used to convict Duncan.

As in McCrory’s case, Louisiana prosecutors have nevertheless continued to insist their case against Duncan is solid. And as in McCrory’s case, this has not gone over well with some judges. Earlier this year, Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Judge John Weimer wrote that bite-mark evidence “should be discarded and no longer have a place in the realm of forensic science.”

“Long ago, some who were thought to have the best and brightest minds of that time endorsed ‘trial by water’ as a means of determining a person’s guilt or innocence. We now look back at those practices as asinine and absurd, since those who fell victim to those practices often did not survive, regardless of whether they were found guilty or innocent,” Weimer wrote. “Thankfully, as scientific knowledge evolved, there was a realization that these practices had no basis whatsoever in logic, reason, or the search for truth, and the practices were discarded.”

As the holidays approach, McCrory’s family remains hopeful that he will soon walk out of prison. His son Chad, who is now in his 40s, has attended a dozen parole hearings with the hope of one day seeing his father released.

Grissett, McCrory’s former lawyer, reached out to Chad to share his hope that McCrory will finally come home. While memories have faded in the tight-knit community of Andalusia, many people remember McCrory’s case, he said.

“Everybody sees this was junk science,” Grissett said. “You don’t have to be a scientist to understand that.”

It’s “sad that it’s taken this long,” Grissett said. It haunts him that “somebody’s still out there who murdered this lady. And I’m afraid that they’re not gonna look into that.”



PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

November 11, 2026; Murder or suicide? National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) entry: Tameshia Shelton: Mississippi: What happens when the board-certified forensic pathologist gets it wrong - and the defence lawyer chooses not to vigorously challenge his evidence? Spoiler alert: Tragically, years of imprisonment as a murderer served by an innocent woman! HL. As noted by NRE scribe Ken Otterbourg: "Dr. Liam Funte ruled the death a homicide, based largely on the bullet’s trajectory, which was straight back and down through Young’s chest, without any significant deviation to the left or right...During cross-examination, (defence lawyer) Ray asked Funte to provide more detail about his homicide determination. Funte said he had relied on the bullet’s pathway and the absence of any history of Young exhibiting mental-health issues. “When I do cases, it’s well-documented,” he said. “If the individuals, they had suicidal ideations, if they had suicidal thoughts, and they shoot themselves, I don’t see nice clean straight back and down gunshot wound. There’s some deviation from left and right. The pathway isn’t quite as nice.” During redirect, Funte testified that it was hard to place the barrel of a gun squarely against one’s chest. “The way you have to turn your wrist is going to deviate that bullet to the left or right, okay … When I see people who have shot themselves in the chest, the bullet goes to one side or the other. Because that’s how he can most easily pull the trigger and hold the gun. Is it possible for somebody to shoot themselves straight back? It’s possible but not probabl[e].” Prior to the trial, Funte had been unaware of the burn marks on Young’s clothes, but he testified that even with this new information, he would still rule the shooting a homicide."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The jury convicted Shelton of first-degree murder on July 17, 2015, and Kitchens sentenced her to life in prison, separating Shelton from Treasure, who was now 6 years old, and an older daughter, Trinity, who was 11 years old.  Shelton appealed, arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that Judge Kitchens should have given different jury instructions. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on March 16, 2017. 

------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "On March 12, 2020, attorneys Tucker Carrington and Sandra Levick filed a motion for post-conviction relief. An amended motion was filed on April 13, 2020.  The motion, which asserted that Shelton was innocent, said that Shelton had been convicted based on inaccurate and incomplete forensic testimony about the cause of death and the gunshot residue that the state used to tie her to the shooting.   In addition, the motion said that Ramirez Williams had testified falsely about when he tested Shelton for gunshot residue. Finally, the motion said that Ray didn’t properly prepare for the trial, failing to consult with experts or present testimony that would have cast doubt on the state’s assertion that Shelton shot Young.   Two forensic pathologists said in affidavits that they had reviewed the evidence and found that there was no basis for Funte to conclude that Young’s death was a homicide. "

-------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Dr. Randall Frost, the medical examiner for Bexar County, Texas, said in an affidavit that Funte testified incorrectly that Young’s lack of mental illness or suicidal ideation supported a finding that ruled out suicide. “Suicide is very often an impulsive act, especially in teenagers and young adult males,” Frost said. The motion included a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that said that 54 percent of people who killed themselves did not have a diagnosed mental-health condition at the time of death.  The motion said that close-contact bullet wounds were almost always associated with suicides (in 96 percent of non-accidental shooting deaths in one study), and that Funte had failed to grasp the significance of Young’s bullet wound when provided with that information at trial.   “When … confronted with the Mississippi Crime Lab’s determination that the gun was actually fired from contact or near contact range, [Funte] should have reconsidered [their] opinion in light of all the facts,” Bux said."

---------------------------------------------------


PASSAGE FOUR  OF THE DAY: "About a month after Young’s death, Shelton had found a note from Treasure’s baby book. It’s not clear when the note was written, but it was either around the time of Treasure’s birth, in early May 2009, or in the days just prior to Young’s death, when he returned to Mhoon Valley for the first time since May.  In the note, Young describes his despair over the collapse of his relationship with Tutton, who he called “T.” He wrote in part: “T is a sweet girl. I love her 2 death. She’s my heart. I planned my life with her around her. I never planned 4 just me. I planned 4 both of us. I will always want to work things out between us always. I’ll never give up on her. I pretty much gotta start my life over again. I have no life without her. These are my last words.” During the trial, Ray told Shelton’s family that Judge Kitchens wouldn’t allow the letter to be introduced into evidence. But the court records didn’t reflect any discussion of the letter, and Ray didn’t do any pre-trial preparation to authenticate the letter as the first step toward its introduction. “Mr. Ray did not make a strategic choice to forgo the evidence; Instead, he utterly failed to execute the choice he had made to gain its admission,” the motion said. "

----------------------------------------------------

PARAGRAPH FIVE OF THE DAY: "Ray testified at an evidentiary hearing on April 14, 2022. He said his experience with juries in Clay County drove his decision not to consult with forensic experts, either on the cause of death or the gunshot residue. “Well, that was not my strategy in this case,” Ray said. “The strategy, as I said earlier, was to go back to a hysterical person who claimed this man committed suicide and keep the jury—try to keep the jury focused on that.” 

-----------------------------------------------------

PARAGRAPH SIX OF THE DAY: "The appeal said that Judge Kitchens’s inference that Shelton wanted Ray to “fabricate” a defense was “untethered to any facts” before the court. “The circuit court’s ruling betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of defense counsel in gathering information, conducting discovery, investigating the case, interviewing witnesses, preparing to introduce evidence, and consulting with and retaining expert assistance on critical forensic issues in the case,” the appeal said. "

------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE SEVEN OF THE DAY: "At an evidentiary hearing before Judge Kitchens on December 9, 2021, Funte said the bullet’s trajectory was not a valid basis for distinguishing homicides from suicides and that his earlier opinion was not supported by science.  Funte also said that when he testified at the trial, he had been unaware of the size of the gun that killed Young. At the hearing, Funte used a toy gun to demonstrate how easy it was to “get the muzzle in alignment parallel to the sagittal plane,” the line that divides the body into right and left halves.  Funte also said that his trial testimony regarding mental-health issues and suicidal ideation was wrong. He said suicides can be impulsive."

-----------------------------------------------------

ENTRY:  Tameshia Shelton: Mississippi: By Ken Otterbourg: Posted  by The National Registry of Exonerations on October 19, 2026; Contributing Factors; (A witches brew!) False or Misleading Forensic Evidence, Perjury or False Accusation, Official Misconduct,  and Inadequate Legal Defense;

GIST: "At 8:59 p.m. on October 16, 2009, Tameshia Shelton called 911 to report a shooting outside her home in Mhoon Valley, a rural community in Clay County, Mississippi.

“Oh my God! Danelle!” Shelton told the operator, referring to 21-year-old Danelle Young, the boyfriend of her half-sister, Ketina Tutton. 

The operator asked Shelton, who was 31 years old, what happened. Shelton said Young was still breathing. The operator asked where Young had been shot. Shelton answered: “I haven’t rolled him over. I’m too scared.” 

The operator asked Shelton if she knew what type of gun was involved.  

Shelton said it was a small handgun. “He saw, he saw a raccoon and he was gonna shoot it. The raccoon was in a tree, and I don’t know if he, um I don’t know I didn't look. I don’t know if he tripped when he got ready to shoot it. I don’t know. I just heard a shot.” 

Shelton remained on the phone with the 911 operator for 17 minutes until two sheriff’s deputies arrived. One of the deputies, Cassandra Smith, would later testify that Shelton was hysterical and screamed, “You’re late. You’re late. He’s dead.” 

Shelton, who was holding her infant daughter, Treasure, in a blanket, searched for the gun, which she said was an heirloom from her grandfather. Smith and another officer later found the weapon, a small .22-caliber pistol with a short barrel, in the grass near Young’s feet. 

Smith then asked another deputy to call Chief Deputy Ramirez Williams and tell him that she suspected there had been a murder. 

Young and Tutton had argued an hour before his death. “I had just told him that we were not–that I was not going to move in January like we had planned,” Tutton told deputies. “This was something we had planned … until I got the job.” After the argument, they parted ways. Tutton went to her mother’s house, which was just up the road, and Young went to Shelton’s trailer. 

Shelton gave several statements to deputies in the immediate aftermath of Young’s death. All were recorded. The first, conducted by Williams, started at 9:33 p.m. and lasted about four minutes. The second statement took place three hours later, at 12:22 a.m. on October 17, and ended at 1:00 a.m. She gave a third statement to another Clay County deputy on October 19 and a fourth statement to a state investigator in preparation for a polygraph test, which was canceled after Shelton had an epileptic seizure. 

In each statement, Shelton gave the same account: Young had knocked on her window, asking if he could borrow her gun to shoot a raccoon up in a tree. Shelton said she retrieved the gun from a plastic bag, loaded it with six bullets, and gave it to Young. She said she asked him to show her the raccoon after he killed it. She said she heard a shot and went outside and found Young. Then she called 911. 

Deputies performed gunshot residue (GSR) tests on Young and Shelton. Five particles were found on Shelton’s hands, and five particles were found on the back of Young’s hands. 

Dr. Liam Funte, a board-certified forensic pathologist, performed the autopsy. He ruled the death a homicide, based largely on the bullet’s trajectory, which was straight back and down through Young’s chest, without any significant deviation to the left or right. 

A grand jury indicted Shelton for murder on April 8, 2011. Shelton was arrested and released on bond. She hired Rodney Ray, a former prosecutor, to represent her. Ray would later testify at a post-conviction hearing that he believed from the beginning that Shelton was innocent. “I thought why would somebody call 911 and stay on the phone for, I think it was 17 minutes, begging people to come to the scene to talk to the one person in the world who could say who did or who did not do it?” he said. 

Nearly six years after Young’s death, on July 14, 2015, Shelton’s jury trial began in Clay County Circuit Court, with Judge James Kitchens Jr. presiding. Prior to trial, Shelton had rejected an offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. 

Smith and Torrey Williams, an auxiliary officer, testified that they saw Shelton constantly rubbing her hands on the blanket wrapped around her daughter’s legs. Williams said this behavior continued inside Shelton’s trailer, where Shelton wiped her hands “over and over.” She continued to wipe her hands in the patrol car and at the sheriff’s office, and Torrey Williams testified that Ramirez Williams said that Shelton could not go to the bathroom or wash her hands prior to being tested for gunshot residue. 

Ramirez Williams testified that he performed a GSR test on Shelton at around 1 a.m. on October 17, 2009.  He said that Shelton had brought up the idea of testing earlier in the interview, and it was the first time that a test had been mentioned during the investigation. 

Three years after her indictment, in March 2014, Shelton had sat for an interview with Lieutenant Brett Watson of the Oktibbeha County Sheriff’s Department, who was administering a voice-stress analysis test. Watson testified that Shelton had claimed during the interview, which was recorded, that Williams had sprinkled a substance on her hands before conducting the gunshot residue test. Watson said there was no test performed by law enforcement that involved sprinkling a substance on a suspect’s hands. 

Felicia Robinson, a forensic scientist, testified that the bullet recovered by Funte during the autopsy had come from Shelton’s gun. She also testified that the gun had been fired from a position of contact or near-contact with Young, based on the burn marks found on his clothes. Robinson also testified that the gun was “very short,” with a barrel length of less than two inches. 

Jacob Burchfield, an analyst with the Mississippi Crime Laboratory, testified that five GSR particles had been found on Shelton’s hands, and five particles had been found on the back of Young’s hands. He said that a person could get GSR on them by firing a weapon, being near a weapon when it was fired, or handling something with GSR already on its surface. He also testified that a person who shoots a gun is more likely to have GSR on their hands than someone who is near the weapon. 

A prosecutor asked Burchfield whether a four-hour lag between the firing of a weapon and a GSR test would have an impact on the amount of residue found on a person’s hands. Burchfield said it would. 

The prosecutor continued: “If a person hypothetically in that four-hour time period goes to the bathroom, pulls their pants down, uses toilet paper, pulls their pants back up. Would those types of behaviors reduce the amount of indicative particles or gunshot residue you would expect to find in a gunshot residue kit? 

“Yes, sir,” Burchfield answered. “Any physical activities.” 

Funte testified about the autopsy and the cause of death. He said the only details he knew about the events leading up to the shooting came from the coroner’s report. (That report said, “There might have been some type of altercation or argument between Mr. Young and his girlfriend prior to the incident.”) 

Funte testified that Young’s death was a homicide, based on the gunshot wound to the chest. “The only thing that was significant during the internal examination was that bullet pathway through the tissue … There was no real significant deviation to the left side or to the right side. So, it was pretty much straight back and down.”  

During cross-examination, Ray asked Funte to provide more detail about his homicide determination. Funte said he had relied on the bullet’s pathway and the absence of any history of Young exhibiting mental-health issues.  

“When I do cases, it’s well-documented,” he said. “If the individuals, they had suicidal ideations, if they had suicidal thoughts, and they shoot themselves, I don’t see nice clean straight back and down gunshot wound. There’s some deviation from left and right. The pathway isn’t quite as nice.” 

During redirect, Funte testified that it was hard to place the barrel of a gun squarely against one’s chest. “The way you have to turn your wrist is going to deviate that bullet to the left or right, okay … When I see people who have shot themselves in the chest, the bullet goes to one side or the other. Because that’s how he can most easily pull the trigger and hold the gun. Is it possible for somebody to shoot themselves straight back? It’s possible but not probabl[e].” 

Prior to the trial, Funte had been unaware of the burn marks on Young’s clothes, but he testified that even with this new information, he would still rule the shooting a homicide. 

Tutton, the only defense witness, testified about her relationship with Young. She said that Young had once nearly overdosed on pain pills after a dental procedure. She also said that she had not been concerned about Young killing himself.  

Edith Young testified that her son did not have a history of mental illness. She also refuted Tutton’s story about Danelle and pain pills. 

Shelton did not testify.  

During the state’s closing argument, Assistant District Attorney Mark Jackson told the jury that Shelton displayed consciousness of guilt through her actions to rid her hands of gunshot residue. “Our actions speak louder than words,” he said. “She calls 911. But she was eliminating evidence the entire time. She was wiping her hands. She wanted to go to the bathroom. She wanted to do all of these things. And they told y’all every single thing she did. Every one of those is going to make gunshot residue continue to go away. Those are the actions of a guilty person. Those aren’t the actions of someone who witnessed the aftermath of a suicide.” 

Jackson also said Funte clearly testified that the shooting was a homicide. “He said in the suicides I’ve seen, there’s always deviation. To get that gun where it needs to be to shoot straight through just didn’t happen. He also said Burchfield’s testimony about the amount of gunshot residue on Young’s hands and the location of the residue indicated Young didn’t shoot himself. “He had almost no gunshot residue,” Jackson said. “He didn’t fire that gun.” 

Jackson also reminded jurors of Watson’s testimony and said that Shelton had concocted a story to explain how she got gunshot residue on her clothes and hands. He said: “The things she comes up with four and a half years later is Ramirez sprinkled something on my hands and cuts off the light. A test that doesn’t exist. It’s not a real thing. None of the investigators ever heard of it.” 

The jury convicted Shelton of first-degree murder on July 17, 2015, and Kitchens sentenced her to life in prison, separating Shelton from Treasure, who was now 6 years old, and an older daughter, Trinity, who was 11 years old. 

Shelton appealed, arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that Judge Kitchens should have given different jury instructions. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on March 16, 2017. 

In 2016, Scott Colom replaced Forrest Allgood as the district attorney for Mississippi’s 16 th Judicial District, which includes Clay County.  

Colom had not been involved in Shelton’s prosecution, and after reading the opinion affirming her conviction, he had his own questions about the case.  

“The evidence sounded thin,” Colom would later tell Mississippi Today . He said there wasn’t much of a motive, and he wondered why a guilty person would call 911. He reached out to the Mississippi Innocence Project and asked the organization to review the case. 

On March 12, 2020, attorneys Tucker Carrington and Sandra Levick filed a motion for post-conviction relief. An amended motion was filed on April 13, 2020. 

The motion, which asserted that Shelton was innocent, said that Shelton had been convicted based on inaccurate and incomplete forensic testimony about the cause of death and the gunshot residue that the state used to tie her to the shooting.  

In addition, the motion said that Ramirez Williams had testified falsely about when he tested Shelton for gunshot residue. Finally, the motion said that Ray didn’t properly prepare for the trial, failing to consult with experts or present testimony that would have cast doubt on the state’s assertion that Shelton shot Young.  

Two forensic pathologists said in affidavits that they had reviewed the evidence and found that there was no basis for Funte to conclude that Young’s death was a homicide.  

Dr. Robert Bux, the former medical examiner for Colorado Springs, Colorado, said in an affidavit that Funte’s testimony about the significance of the bullet’s pathway through Young’s chest was “irrelevant.” He wrote: “I know of no scientific support for Dr. Funte’s testimony that the lack of significant deviation of the bullet path to the left or to the right is a basis for concluding that the manner of death was homicide.” 

He said Funte testified incorrectly about the difficulty of holding a gun perpendicular to one’s chest. “[Their] testimony that one’s wrist will bend and force the gun to the left or right is worthless,” Bux said.   

Dr. Randall Frost, the medical examiner for Bexar County, Texas, said in an affidavit that Funte testified incorrectly that Young’s lack of mental illness or suicidal ideation supported a finding that ruled out suicide. “Suicide is very often an impulsive act, especially in teenagers and young adult males,” Frost said. The motion included a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that said that 54 percent of people who killed themselves did not have a diagnosed mental-health condition at the time of death. 

The motion said that close-contact bullet wounds were almost always associated with suicides (in 96 percent of non-accidental shooting deaths in one study), and that Funte had failed to grasp the significance of Young’s bullet wound when provided with that information at trial.  

“When … confronted with the Mississippi Crime Lab’s determination that the gun was actually fired from contact or near contact range, [Funte] should have reconsidered [their] opinion in light of all the facts,” Bux said. 

The motion also included an affidavit from Crystina Vachon, a forensic scientist and expert on gunshot residue, that said the GSR evidence was consistent with suicide. Vachon said that the number of particles found on a person’s hand was not a reliable indicator of when or how they handled a weapon. She also said that Burchfield’s GSR report indicated that Young’s right hand was covered in dirt, which would have interfered with an accurate test. Vachon also said that the location of the residue, on the back of Young’s hands, was consistent with Young using the weapon. 

The motion also said that Williams had testified falsely about when he administered the GSR test to Shelton. According to the GSR collection form, the test took place at 9:51 p.m., not 1 a.m., as Williams testified. The three-hour difference had enhanced the state’s case by supporting its theory that Shelton used that time to destroy evidence. It also made the small amount of GSR found on Shelton seem more meaningful, the motion said. 

The motion said Ray didn’t consult with experts to learn about the flaws in the state’s forensic evidence. Doing so would have allowed him to effectively cross-examine the state’s witnesses, the motion said. 

Burchfield, the state’s GSR witness at the trial, said in an affidavit included in the motion, “Had I been asked at trial whether the five particles indicative of gunshot residue on the hands of Tameshia Shelton were consistent with her having handled and loaded a previously fired handgun within one hour of being tested, I would have answered yes.” 

The motion said that Ray failed to present other evidence undermining the state’s case. Williams had testified about finding a hair clip and a rubber band in some disturbed gravel and asserted that these items indicated a scuffle between Tutton and Young prior to the shooting. But the state had obtained a video showing Tutton and Young at the Walmart in nearby West Point at 8:06 p.m., less than an hour before the shooting. Tutton’s hair was loose. The motion said that this evidence would have “resoundingly rebutted” Williams’s testimony that there had been a physical altercation prior to the shooting.  

About a month after Young’s death, Shelton had found a note from Treasure’s baby book. It’s not clear when the note was written, but it was either around the time of Treasure’s birth, in early May 2009, or in the days just prior to Young’s death, when he returned to Mhoon Valley for the first time since May. 

In the note, Young describes his despair over the collapse of his relationship with Tutton, who he called “T.” He wrote in part: “T is a sweet girl. I love her 2 death. She’s my heart. I planned my life with her around her. I never planned 4 just me. I planned 4 both of us. I will always want to work things out between us always. I’ll never give up on her. I pretty much gotta start my life over again. I have no life without her. These are my last words.” 

During the trial, Ray told Shelton’s family that Judge Kitchens wouldn’t allow the letter to be introduced into evidence. But the court records didn’t reflect any discussion of the letter, and Ray didn’t do any pre-trial preparation to authenticate the letter as the first step toward its introduction. “Mr. Ray did not make a strategic choice to forgo the evidence; Instead, he utterly failed to execute the choice he had made to gain its admission,” the motion said.  

Watson had testified that Shelton claimed deputies had sprinkled her hands with a substance prior to testing. But the transcript of that interview, which was not prepared at the time of the trial, showed that Shelton never used the word “sprinkled.” Instead, she talked about Williams putting “stuff on her hands, most likely a reference to the GSR test he administered at her trailer. The motion said it was unclear whether Ray listened to the interview before the trial, but “he made no objection to the state’s false characterization of what was said.” 

After the motion was filed, Shelton’s attorneys and the state contacted Funte, then a medical examiner in Maine. In an affidavit filed on May 20, 2021, Funte recanted his trial testimony. He said he would now have ruled Young’s death as undetermined.  

At an evidentiary hearing before Judge Kitchens on December 9, 2021, Funte said the bullet’s trajectory was not a valid basis for distinguishing homicides from suicides and that his earlier opinion was not supported by science.  

Funte also said that when he testified at the trial, he had been unaware of the size of the gun that killed Young. At the hearing, Funte used a toy gun to demonstrate how easy it was to “get the muzzle in alignment parallel to the sagittal plane,” the line that divides the body into right and left halves. 

Funte also said that his trial testimony regarding mental-health issues and suicidal ideation was wrong. He said suicides can be impulsive. 

Ray testified at an evidentiary hearing on April 14, 2022. He said his experience with juries in Clay County drove his decision not to consult with forensic experts, either on the cause of death or the gunshot residue. “Well, that was not my strategy in this case,” Ray said. “The strategy, as I said earlier, was to go back to a hysterical person who claimed this man committed suicide and keep the jury—try to keep the jury focused on that.” 

Ray said he intentionally limited his cross-examination of Burchfield. “I couldn’t get Burchfield off the stand quick enough,” Ray said. “I did not want them to keep hearing about the gunshot residue. I knew it was damning for my defense.”   

Burchfield testified at the evidentiary hearing that Shelton’s account of when she handled the gun in days before the shooting death, including loading the gun with bullets before handing it to Young, was entirely consistent with the GSR found on her hands, and that if Ray had asked him that question, he would have answered yes. 

Ramirez Williams testified at the evidentiary hearing that his practice was to collect gunshot residue as soon as possible. He said the collection form he signed was dated October 16, 2009, at 9:51 p.m. The available records don’t indicate the prosecutor ever examined the collection form. 

Both sides filed post-hearing briefs in October 2022. In November 2023, after Judge Kitchens had not yet issued a ruling, Shelton petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. Judge Kitchen said he would rule by the end of 2023 but failed to do so. The Mississippi Supreme Court issued the writ on January 22, 2024, and ordered Judge Kitchens to enter a ruling within 45 days. Nine days after the deadline, on March 18, 2024, Judge Kitchens denied Shelton’s motion.  

Judge Kitchens said that Funte’s recantation was not sufficient to merit a new trial because Mississippi law didn’t require a forensic pathologist to rule a death as homicide before a jury convicted a defendant of murder. He also said that Ray had provided effective representation, and that Ramirez Williams had not testified falsely about when he administered the GSR test. He said the deputy’s testimony was not the result of dishonesty, but rather “indicative of a witness who had not re-read the file before trial and attempted to rely upon his memory.” 

Shelton appealed, arguing that Judge Kitchens had ignored the motion records and misapplied case law in rejecting the motion for a new trial.  

The appeal said that it didn’t matter why Williams testified falsely about the time of the GSR test. “Dishonesty is not required,” the appeal said. “What is required is that the testimony itself was false or misleading, a test met here even if Williams failed to prepare for his testimony and instead relied on his faulty memory.” (The state also said Williams did not testify falsely; the collection form he signed contained “scrivener’s errors.”) 

Judge Kitchens’s order did not directly address Shelton’s claim about Ray’s failure to vigorously pursue the use of Young’s letter at trial. His ruling said: “The defendant is responsible for supplying the attorney with sufficient information so her counsel can present a ‘coherent defense.’ It is not trial counsel's job to fabricate a defense.”  

The appeal said that Judge Kitchens’s inference that Shelton wanted Ray to “fabricate” a defense was “untethered to any facts” before the court. “The circuit court’s ruling betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of defense counsel in gathering information, conducting discovery, investigating the case, interviewing witnesses, preparing to introduce evidence, and consulting with and retaining expert assistance on critical forensic issues in the case,” the appeal said. 

On December 9, 2025, the Mississippi Court of Appeals granted Shelton a new trial. In the 6-3 ruling, the court said that Funte had recanted his trial testimony that Young’s death was a homicide, “withdrawing a crucial piece of the evidentiary foundation upon which the State’s case rested.”  

The appellate court also found that Ray had been ineffective in his failure to submit Young’s letter into evidence. Ray had testified at the evidentiary hearing that Judge Kitchens would not allow him to introduce the letter, but the appellate court said there was nothing in the court record that supported that claim. “Considering the potentially exculpatory nature of this letter, we find it difficult to conclude that its absence did not prejudice Shelton’s defense,” the appellate court said. 

The court also said that Shelton had failed to prove her actual innocence. It did not rule on Shelton’s claim that Williams testified falsely.  

Shelton was released from prison on June 29, 2026.  

At a hearing on September 21, 2026, Colom asked Judge Kitchens to dismiss the case. He said in a motion that he had asked the Mississippi Medical Examiner’s Office to review Funte’s autopsy and that the office told him it could not provide any additional services. “In light of this development,” Colom wrote, “the State does not have evidence upon which a reasonable jury could rely to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Young's death was a homicide rather than a suicide.” 

Judge Kitchens dismissed the case on October 7, 2026. 

“At last, this case that should have never been brought is over,” Levick said. “Ms. Shelton was convicted of a murder that never happened at a trial that was not fair by a jury that never heard all the facts.""

https://www.exonerationregistry.org/cases/20504

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;k