Alabama Judge Orders Retrial or Release for Man Jailed 40 Years on 'Junk Science' Bite Mark Evidence
A federal judge found the bite mark evidence that led to Charles McCrory's life sentence was unreliable and prejudiced the jury.
A federal judge has ordered a new trial or the release of an Alabama man who has spent over four decades in prison for the 1985 murder of his wife, ruling that the conviction relied on "junk science."
Chief US District Judge Austin Huffaker Jr. stated in a Monday order that the bite mark evidence presented at Charles McCrory's trial was insufficient and prejudiced the outcome, especially given the limited other evidence. The Alabama Attorney General's Office has 180 days to either begin a new trial for McCrory or release him from custody.
McCrory was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the slaying of his wife, Julie Bonds McCrory, in May 1985. At the time of her death, the couple was going through a divorce. Julie McCrory was found dead in her apartment with severe injuries, including five 'chop' wounds to her head, 11 puncture wounds to her chest, a fractured jaw, and bruises. Two small marks on her upper right arm were presented as the key physical evidence connecting McCrory to the crime.
Dr. Richard Souviron, a forensic dentist, testified at McCrory's 1985 trial that these marks were bite marks made by Charles McCrory. Souviron, who had previously testified in the Ted Bundy trial, was the sole expert to link the wounds to McCrory's teeth. However, the technique of matching bite marks to specific individuals is now widely considered unreliable and has been labeled "junk science" by national forensic groups.
In a 2019 affidavit, Souviron recanted his earlier testimony, stating he no longer believed the comparison was reliable and that he would not offer the same testimony today. He also noted that he had not examined Julie McCrory's body directly but relied on photographs.
Despite Souviron's recantation and the growing consensus against bite mark analysis, Alabama state courts had previously denied McCrory's requests for a new trial. In 2021, prosecutors argued that jurors could have independently compared the marks on the victim's arm to photographs of McCrory's teeth. Judge Huffaker criticized this argument, stating that if an expert cannot reliably testify about bite mark identification due to its status as junk science, a jury should not be permitted to make that determination.
"It makes little sense that a lay jury could permissibly form a conclusion that no forensic expert could," Huffaker wrote. He added that the state court's denial of a new trial in 2022 was an "unreasonable application of clearly established federal law" and based on an "unreasonable determination of the facts."
McCrory's legal team cited numerous cases where individuals were wrongfully convicted based on bite mark forensics, including two cases involving Souviron's testimony. The conviction was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, McCrory's alleged behavior, and disputed witness statements, with no DNA evidence, confession, or clear motive presented.
In 2018, McCrory was offered a plea deal that would allow him to walk free if he admitted to killing his wife. He declined the offer, stating he would not plead guilty to a crime he did not commit.
Charles McCrory worked for 26 years as a tech worker and volunteer paramedic. He and his wife were in the midst of a divorce when she was killed. Evidence suggested the couple was attempting reconciliation, as Julie McCrory's date book indicated the possibility of Charles moving back in. No blood was found on his clothing or in his apartment after the murder.
IMAGE1:
IMAGE2: 
