PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: In March 2006, Denton went to trial in Ware County Superior Court. The prosecution’s primary evidence was testimony from Dr. Thomas David, a forensic odontologist. David testified “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that a bitemark had been found on Denton’s left arm and a bitemark had been found on Garner’s right forearm. David said “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that it was probable that Denton left the bitemark on Garner and that it was probable that Garner left the bitemark on Denton.
----------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "In addition, the motion said that David’s opinions on bitemark evidence had evolved as well. The motion said that in April of 2016, following the change in the ABFO Guidelines, David had authored an affidavit in a bitemark case in Pennsylvania. In that case, he had testified at the 1991 trial of John Kunco and linked Kunco to an injury that David said was a bitemark. In his affidavit in that case, David had said that the “scientific knowledge and understanding on which these conclusions were based, however, has changed significantly,” and that he “would not proffer such testimony, since it is inconsistent with the current ABFO Guidelines and with current scientific understanding of the limitations of bitemark comparison.”
-------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The motion said that during an evidentiary hearing in the Kunco case, David had modified his opinion in light of the changes in scientific understanding of bitemark evidence as was reflected in the new ABFO Guidelines. He had changed his opinion from the highest level of certainty that the injury was a bitemark to “cannot exclude.” The motion said that David further admitted that he could not give an opinion as to how many people could have made the mark at issue because “[y]ou don’t know how many people might be included in an open population.” “In other words, in Mr. Kunco’s case, Dr. David admitted that the new evidence—namely, the change in scientific understanding of bitemark analysis as reflected in the new ABFO Guidelines—would change the testimony he would offer at trial,” the motion said. (In 2019, after Kunco had been granted a new trial, he pled guilty to lesser charges for his release.) Waycross County Chief Superior Court Judge Dwayne H. Gillis held a hearing in May 2018."
-------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE FOUR OF THE DAY: "David testified, as did Dr. Cynthia Brzozowski and Dr. Adam Freeman—all board-certified by the ABFO. The defense also presented two affidavits co-authored by five board-certified ABFO odontologists. Each of the experts agreed that any testimony regarding the bitemarks, based on the current science, would no longer be incriminating. David admitted that if he testified at Denton’s trial based on the recent advancements in science, his testimony would have been different."
---------------------------------------------------------
National Registry of Exonerations: Sheila Denton: Georgia: Major (Welcome) Development: Contributing factors: False or Misleading Forensic Evidence, Perjury or False Accusation, Official Misconduct." By Maurice Possley: Entered on September 15. 2026.
On May 21, 2004, the body of 73-year-old Eugene Garner was found in his home in Waycross, Georgia. Neighbors called the police after entering his house, seeing signs of a struggle, and smelling natural gas. Garner was lying face down in the bedroom.
Police noticed that all of the gas stove burners were on, but the pilot lights were extinguished. Once the house cleared of gas, Garner’s body was removed. His pockets had been turned out of his pants.
An autopsy revealed that Garner died from manual strangulation and extensive blunt force trauma. An injury on his right forearm was characterized as a bitemark. His body had been doused with a liquid chemical.
Thirty-seven-year-old Sheila Denton became a suspect after she was arrested at midnight on the day Garner’s body was found and gave police a false name. Police determined that Denton knew Garner because she had delivered food to his house. Garner was commonly believed at the time to keep large amounts of cash in his house, although there was no evidence, beyond his turned out pants pockets, that any money was missing.
Police subsequently picked up Sharon Jones, an admitted crack cocaine addict and crack cocaine dealer. During an interrogation, Jones initially denied any knowledge of the crime. However, when she was threatened with being charged with Garner’s murder, she implicated Denton, claiming that Denton had confessed to the crime.
On August 13, 2004, Denton was indicted on charges of malice murder, felony murder, and giving a false name to the police.
In March 2006, Denton went to trial in Ware County Superior Court. The prosecution’s primary evidence was testimony from Dr. Thomas David, a forensic odontologist.
David testified “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that a bitemark had been found on Denton’s left arm and a bitemark had been found on Garner’s right forearm. David said “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that it was probable that Denton left the bitemark on Garner and that it was probable that Garner left the bitemark on Denton.
An analyst from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's Division of Forensic Sciences testified that she had examined hairs that were found in Garner’s hand. The analyst said that the hair belonged to Garner. She said no hair associated with Denton was found at the scene.
Jones testified that at 4:30 a.m. some day in May 2004, Denton came to a known crack house where Jones was guarding about $500 worth of crack cocaine. When Denton first came to the door, according to Jones, Denton said, “I did something.” Jones said that Denton had cuts and scratches on her arms and legs. Jones testified that she asked Denton, "What’s wrong with you? What happened?”
Jones said that Denton replied, “I just killed the man that stay in front of Wally’s,” referring to a convenience store across the highway from Garner’s residence. Jones said that Denton, who typically had little money, bought $300 worth of crack cocaine and left.
Jones testified that she didn’t believe Denton. She said that she thought Denton had fallen in some bushes.
She admitted that she implicated Denton only after the officers “kept saying I did it.” She said the police told her they had found her fingerprints in Garner’s home and that they had a videotape of her in the home. Jones said she knew that wasn’t true, but the officers threatened to put her in jail.
The prosecution conceded during closing arguments that if not for the bitemark testimony, “I have to admit that’s reasonable doubt” in the case.
On March 15, 2006, the jury acquitted Denton of malice murder, and convicted her of felony murder and giving a false name to the police. She was sentenced to life in prison plus one year.
Denton appealed, arguing that Jones was not a credible witness because of the amount of crack cocaine she was smoking at that time, the tricks and lies the police officers told to get her to talk to them, and contradictions between her trial testimony and her statements to police officers.
In February 2010, the Georgia Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed the convictions and sentence. “The transcript reveals that all of these matters going to Jones’s credibility were thoroughly addressed by defense counsel on cross-examination,” the Court said. “Assessing the credibility of Sharon Jones was a matter lying within the province of the jury, not this Court.”
In November 2017, Mark Loudon-Brown and Katherine Moss, attorneys from the Southern Center for Human Rights, filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial. The motion asserted that David’s testimony at the trial was no longer valid.
The motion was based in part on advancements in the scientific understanding of bitemark evidence, changes in the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) guidelines, and new opinions from two other forensic odontologists that demonstrated that the bitemark evidence in the case could not affirmatively link Denton the murder.
In addition, the motion said that David’s opinions on bitemark evidence had evolved as well. The motion said that in April of 2016, following the change in the ABFO Guidelines, David had authored an affidavit in a bitemark case in Pennsylvania. In that case, he had testified at the 1991 trial of John Kunco and linked Kunco to an injury that David said was a bitemark.
In his affidavit in that case, David had said that the “scientific knowledge and understanding on which these conclusions were based, however, has changed significantly,” and that he “would not proffer such testimony, since it is inconsistent with the current ABFO Guidelines and with current scientific understanding of the limitations of bitemark comparison.”
The motion said that during an evidentiary hearing in the Kunco case, David had modified his opinion in light of the changes in scientific understanding of bitemark evidence as was reflected in the new ABFO Guidelines. He had changed his opinion from the highest level of certainty that the injury was a bitemark to “cannot exclude.”
The motion said that David further admitted that he could not give an opinion as to how many people could have made the mark at issue because “[y]ou don’t know how many people might be included in an open population.”
“In other words, in Mr. Kunco’s case, Dr. David admitted that the new evidence—namely, the change in scientific understanding of bitemark analysis as reflected in the new ABFO Guidelines—would change the testimony he would offer at trial,” the motion said. (In 2019, after Kunco had been granted a new trial, he pled guilty to lesser charges for his release.) Waycross County Chief Superior Court Judge Dwayne H. Gillis held a hearing in May 2018.
David testified, as did Dr. Cynthia Brzozowski and Dr. Adam Freeman—all board-certified by the ABFO. The defense also presented two affidavits co-authored by five board-certified ABFO odontologists. Each of the experts agreed that any testimony regarding the bitemarks, based on the current science, would no longer be incriminating.
David admitted that if he testified at Denton’s trial based on the recent advancements in science, his testimony would have been different.
Brzozowski testified that at the time of Denton’s trial, the testimony given by David was permissible. However, by 2019, saying that an injury was probably a bitemark was no longer a permitted conclusion by ABFO guidelines.
“He [David] testified that Ms. Denton was the probable biter of Mr. Garner and that Mr. Garner was the probable biter of Ms. Denton. And today we would not testify as to a probabilistic association,” Brzozowski said.
She said she had reviewed photographs of the injuries and concluded there was “insufficient evidence to determine that either of these injuries are human bite marks.”
Freeman testified that under the current AFBO guidelines, David’s trial testimony concerning probability would be “a misrepresentation of what the underlying science supports.” He said that in his opinion, neither injury was a bitemark at all.
On Feb. 7, 2020, Denton's conviction was vacated with assistance from the Innocence Project. Judge Gillis granted the defense motion, vacated Denton’s convictions, and ordered a new trial.
“The defense testimony and evidence in this case is profound and leads one to conclude that bitemark evidence is no longer a valid subject of scientific inquiry unless it can exonerate one or exclude a particular person,” Judge Gillis wrote.
The judge noted that “David admitted that, today, he would not even compare the marks on [Garner] with the teeth of Denton, because it is uncertain as to what caused the injury at all.”
Moreover, Judge Gillis said, “This record is clear that the expert opinion evidence has changed. Additionally, it is clear that the ABFO guidelines changed due to the realization that bitemark evidence is inherently unreliable.”
He said that the ABFO’s recognition of the inadequacies of bitemark evidence "is profound and undisputed." He added that the bitemark evidence presented in Denton' s trial "was not competent evidence.”
On April 8, 2020, more than 15 years after her arrest, Denton was released pending a retrial.
On September 9, 2026, Ware County Superior Court Judge J. Kelly Brooks dismissed all of the charges against Denton.
In a one-page ruling, Judge Brooks declared that “the State does not believe there is sufficient evidence likely to obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Judge Brooks noted that without the bitemark evidence, “the only evidence linking [Denton] to the murder was the testimony of a single witness [Jones] who testified that [Denton] admitted to the murder. However, a review of the trial transcript shows that this witness was effectively impeached at trial and had highly dubious credibility.”"
The entire entry 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;
