Alabama Judge Orders New Trial or Release for Man Imprisoned 4 Decades on 'Junk Science'

An Alabama man who has spent more than four decades in prison for the killing of his wife is set to receive a new trial or be released, following a federal judge's ruling that the conviction was based on unreliable "junk science." Charles McCrory was sentenced to life in prison in May 1985 for the murder of Julie Bonds McCrory.

Chief US District Judge Austin Huffaker Jr. stated in a Monday order that the bite mark evidence presented at McCrory's trial clearly influenced the outcome, especially considering the limited other evidence. He noted that the non-bite mark evidence sufficient for a jury to convict was "thin."

Bite Mark Evidence Questioned

The case against McCrory primarily rested on two small marks found on his wife's arm, which a forensic dentist testified were bite marks inflicted by McCrory. At the time of the trial, this forensic technique was accepted, but it is now widely considered unreliable and has been discredited by numerous scientific and legal organizations.

Adding to the doubt, the dentist who testified at McCrory's trial, Dr. Richard Souviron, has since recanted his testimony. In a 2019 affidavit, Souviron stated he no longer believed the individualized teeth mark comparison testimony was reliable and indicated he would not offer the same testimony today. He also noted that he had not examined Julie's body directly but relied on photographs.

Judge Huffaker criticized the state court's previous denials of a new trial, calling them an "unreasonable application of clearly established federal law" and based on an "unreasonable determination of the facts." He specifically addressed the argument that a jury could have reached its own conclusion by examining photos of the marks, stating, "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."

Circumstantial Case and Recantation

McCrory was 26 at the time of his wife's death and working as a tech worker and volunteer paramedic. He and Julie were in the midst of a divorce when she was found dead in her apartment. Evidence at the scene included five "chop" wounds to her head, 11 puncture wounds to her chest, a fractured jaw, bruises, and the two marks on her arm. No DNA evidence, confession, or clear motive linking McCrory to the crime was presented, and no blood was found in his apartment or on his clothing.

Despite the questionable forensic evidence and the dentist's recantation, state courts previously denied McCrory's requests for a new trial. In 2019, the Alabama Attorney General's Office argued that jurors could have compared the marks themselves to photos of the victim's body. Judge Huffaker dismissed this notion, stating it was illogical for a lay jury to form conclusions that forensic experts could no longer make.

McCrory's legal team has cited numerous wrongful convictions based on bite mark forensics, including two cases involving Souviron's testimony.

Judge Huffaker has given the Alabama Attorney General's Office 180 days to either begin a new trial for McCrory or release him from prison. Six years prior, McCrory had been offered a deal to walk free if he admitted guilt, but he declined, stating he would not plead guilty to a crime he did not commit.