PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "I wrote about this case for the first time one year ago this week, when the trial-court judge found that “bite mark” evidence used to convict Duncan was based on junk science and that several other evidentiary claims were extremely dubious — including the very notion that the girl had been sexually assaulted, with medical analysts now saying otherwise. Suffice it to say that by now, the near-certain truth is what Duncan has claimed all along: The little girl, who had a history of seizures, had another seizure and drowned while briefly left alone in a partially filled bathtub. As state Supreme Court Justice Cade Cole wrote for the unanimous court, “Had the ‘new’ evidence, in light of all relevant evidence, been presented at trial, no rational juror would have found Duncan guilty of the first degree murder of Haley beyond a reasonable doubt.”
-----------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The legislators got the policy mostly right, and all the judges on the state Supreme Court got the facts and law right. Chris Duncan has suffered long enough for leaving a child unattended while he washed dishes in a nearby room. Let this man finally live free without further persecuting him — and perhaps amend the law to remove the chance for prosecutors to retry men already found factually innocent."
--------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "Quin Hillyer: Louisiana courts shouldn’t play double jeopardy with a freed man’s life," by Columnist Quin Hillyer, published by Nola.com, on July 11, 2026.
GIST: "When a man serves 28 years on death row for a crime he almost certainly didn’t commit, and then two courts find him “factually innocent” under a law passed five years ago by a conservative, tough-on-crime legislature, he shouldn’t be subjected to yet another trial.
Indeed, a new trial could be unconstitutional.
So why is a prosecutor in Monroe saying he intends to charge and try the man again?
On June 29, the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that Jimmie “Chris” Duncan had been wrongly convicted on a horrid charge of raping and murdering his girlfriend’s 23-month-old daughter in 1993. To be clear, this decision didn’t involve letting Duncan off on some procedural technicality; this was a slew of judges finding the original conviction itself was factually mistaken.
I wrote about this case for the first time one year ago this week, when the trial-court judge found that “bite mark” evidence used to convict Duncan was based on junk science and that several other evidentiary claims were extremely dubious — including the very notion that the girl had been sexually assaulted, with medical analysts now saying otherwise.
Suffice it to say that by now, the near-certain truth is what Duncan has claimed all along: The little girl, who had a history of seizures, had another seizure and drowned while briefly left alone in a partially filled bathtub. As state Supreme Court Justice Cade Cole wrote for the unanimous court, “Had the ‘new’ evidence, in light of all relevant evidence, been presented at trial, no rational juror would have found Duncan guilty of the first degree murder of Haley beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Cole, by the way, is far from a judicial leftist: He was the Louisiana College Republican state chairman and a member of the Federalist Society.
Nonetheless, Steve Tew, the district attorney for Ouachita and Morehouse parishes, told Kaitlyn Maness of the Ouachita Citizen on Wednesday that he wants to retry Duncan for murder, although he isn’t sure which “degree” of murder he wants to charge.
Yes, that is within Tew’s authority under Act 104 of the 2021 legislative session, through which Duncan secured his post-conviction release based on being “factually innocent.” That act explicitly says a new judgment in the convict’s favor “shall not prevent (him) from being retried for the offense.” And Louisiana’s legal definition of forbidden “double jeopardy” says double jeopardy doesn’t apply when “judgment has been arrested” on the convict’s “own motion.”
Well, I’m no expert on strange wrinkles in “double jeopardy” jurisprudence, but this idea of retrying someone whom multiple courts have found to be factually innocent seems to violate the letter of, and certainly the spirit of, the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. To quote it: “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
Either way, why is Tew hellbent on further punishing Duncan? The man had no criminal record before the tragic event; eight judges decided the most essential “evidence” against him is junk and the other supposedly incriminating testimony has been convincingly refuted. And all the relevant family members of the victim, including the child’s mother, believe Duncan is innocent.
Surely no jury, 33 years after little Haley Oliveaux’s death, would find Duncan guilty of anything worse than some sort of manslaughter charge based on carelessness. Louisiana law says the maximum prison term for “negligent homicide” is 10 years. Duncan has already served three times that long, most of it under a death sentence.
Again, what’s the point?
There’s a crucial principle at play here, one at the heart of modern American conservatism. Namely, the American framers’ whole point in designing so many “checks and balances” in government is that safeguards and redress always should be available — because all government officials, including prosecutors, can make mistakes. That’s the essence of conservatives’ desire to limit government’s power: to protect citizens from government’s error or abuse.
That, too, is why Louisiana’s conservative lawmakers this very decade passed Act 104: to give convicts a chance to show that newly understood facts now exonerate them.
The legislators got the policy mostly right, and all the judges on the state Supreme Court got the facts and law right. Chris Duncan has suffered long enough for leaving a child unattended while he washed dishes in a nearby room. Let this man finally live free without further persecuting him — and perhaps amend the law to remove the chance for prosecutors to retry men already found factually innocent."
Indeed, a new trial could be unconstitutional.
So why is a prosecutor in Monroe saying he intends to charge and try the man again?
On June 29, the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that Jimmie “Chris” Duncan had been wrongly convicted on a horrid charge of raping and murdering his girlfriend’s 23-month-old daughter in 1993. To be clear, this decision didn’t involve letting Duncan off on some procedural technicality; this was a slew of judges finding the original conviction itself was factually mistaken.
I wrote about this case for the first time one year ago this week, when the trial-court judge found that “bite mark” evidence used to convict Duncan was based on junk science and that several other evidentiary claims were extremely dubious — including the very notion that the girl had been sexually assaulted, with medical analysts now saying otherwise.
Suffice it to say that by now, the near-certain truth is what Duncan has claimed all along: The little girl, who had a history of seizures, had another seizure and drowned while briefly left alone in a partially filled bathtub. As state Supreme Court Justice Cade Cole wrote for the unanimous court, “Had the ‘new’ evidence, in light of all relevant evidence, been presented at trial, no rational juror would have found Duncan guilty of the first degree murder of Haley beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Cole, by the way, is far from a judicial leftist: He was the Louisiana College Republican state chairman and a member of the Federalist Society.
Nonetheless, Steve Tew, the district attorney for Ouachita and Morehouse parishes, told Kaitlyn Maness of the Ouachita Citizen on Wednesday that he wants to retry Duncan for murder, although he isn’t sure which “degree” of murder he wants to charge.
Yes, that is within Tew’s authority under Act 104 of the 2021 legislative session, through which Duncan secured his post-conviction release based on being “factually innocent.” That act explicitly says a new judgment in the convict’s favor “shall not prevent (him) from being retried for the offense.” And Louisiana’s legal definition of forbidden “double jeopardy” says double jeopardy doesn’t apply when “judgment has been arrested” on the convict’s “own motion.”
Well, I’m no expert on strange wrinkles in “double jeopardy” jurisprudence, but this idea of retrying someone whom multiple courts have found to be factually innocent seems to violate the letter of, and certainly the spirit of, the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. To quote it: “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
Either way, why is Tew hellbent on further punishing Duncan? The man had no criminal record before the tragic event; eight judges decided the most essential “evidence” against him is junk and the other supposedly incriminating testimony has been convincingly refuted. And all the relevant family members of the victim, including the child’s mother, believe Duncan is innocent.
Surely no jury, 33 years after little Haley Oliveaux’s death, would find Duncan guilty of anything worse than some sort of manslaughter charge based on carelessness. Louisiana law says the maximum prison term for “negligent homicide” is 10 years. Duncan has already served three times that long, most of it under a death sentence.
Again, what’s the point?
There’s a crucial principle at play here, one at the heart of modern American conservatism. Namely, the American framers’ whole point in designing so many “checks and balances” in government is that safeguards and redress always should be available — because all government officials, including prosecutors, can make mistakes. That’s the essence of conservatives’ desire to limit government’s power: to protect citizens from government’s error or abuse.
That, too, is why Louisiana’s conservative lawmakers this very decade passed Act 104: to give convicts a chance to show that newly understood facts now exonerate them.
The legislators got the policy mostly right, and all the judges on the state Supreme Court got the facts and law right. Chris Duncan has suffered long enough for leaving a child unattended while he washed dishes in a nearby room. Let this man finally live free without further persecuting him — and perhaps amend the law to remove the chance for prosecutors to retry men already found factually innocent."
The entire commentary can be read at:
https://share.google/OzQuQjAR8KBVnoxCw
https://share.google/OzQuQjAR8KBVnoxCw
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;
