Louisiana Supreme Court Frees Duncan, Rejecting Junk Bite Evidence

The Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously overturned the 1998 death sentence of Jimmie “Chris” Duncan, calling the forensic bite-mark evidence “scientifically indefensible” and ordering his conviction dismissed. The decision follows decades of scrutiny of the me

For 28 years, Jimmie “Chris” Duncan lived under a sentence the state had no way to take back. On Monday, that finally changed.

The Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Duncan’s 1998 conviction for the killing of Haley Oliveaux must be overturned. The court’s decision upheld a lower court’s ruling that tossed out the conviction after Duncan’s legal team presented new evidence casting serious doubt on the forensic foundation prosecutors used to reach death.

Justice Cade R. Cole, writing for the seven-member court, said the post-conviction evidence left “no doubt that his conviction should be overturned.” Cole wrote in the official opinion that “The post-conviction evidence undermined the core factual premises on which the state depended.”

Two other justices—Chief Justice John Weimer among them—issued opinions concurring with Cole.

“I am flooded with relief,” said Chris Fabricant, a member of Duncan’s legal team and director of strategic litigation with the Innocence Project in New York, in an interview. “It would have been a moral outrage for the conviction to be reinstated.”

The ruling comes after scrutiny of the bite-mark forensic evidence central to Duncan’s case—evidence that was widely treated as reliable at the time of his trial but later denounced as unreliable by experts and courts. Duncan was 57.

In the 1990s, Ouachita Parish prosecutors relied heavily on bite marks that they said matched Duncan’s teeth. The state presented forensic dentist Michael West and pathologist Steven Hayne as key witnesses. Their analysis. described as critical to the prosecution’s theory. claimed to match marks on Haley’s body to Duncan’s teeth.

Cole’s opinion returned to those supposed bite marks as the linchpin of the case. The court pointed to a video of West’s 1993 examination of Haley—a recording that. Cole noted. was not shown to jurors at trial. In the video. West could be seen taking a mold of Duncan’s teeth and grinding it into and across Haley’s body. seemingly creating bite marks where none previously existed.

Cole also referenced previous testimony from a defense expert. In the opinion, Cole wrote that it was “scientifically indefensible” to identify those marks as having been made by Duncan. Cole further said the angles shown in the West video were physically impossible for a human bite.

West, for his part, has previously said he was using what he called a “direct comparison” technique, in which he presses a mold of a person’s teeth directly onto the location of suspected bite marks.

Weimer’s concurrence added another layer of skepticism. comparing the bite-mark approach in Duncan’s prosecution to “trial by water” tests used by witch-hunters in 17th-century Europe. In those tests, accused witches were bound with rope and lowered into water. Those who “floated” were deemed guilty, and those who “passed” by sinking often drowned.

“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. “The bite mark evidence and the sexual abuse evidence used in the trial against the accused has proven to be similarly specious.”.

Weimer also said the prosecution’s stakes were intolerably high. He wrote: “Duncan’s prosecution ‘demonstrates we cannot be too careful in determining whether the death penalty should be implemented in cases such as this case because of the finality of the sentence and the impossibility of rectification.’” He continued that “Such an irreversible and tragic consequence is inimical and deleterious to our system of justice if carried out based on evidence that is devoid of legitimacy.”.

The case has been under renewed spotlight after a 2025 Verite News and ProPublica investigation examined the reliability of the forensic evidence used to convict Duncan. At the time of that reporting, Duncan faced the possibility of being put to death as Gov. Jeff Landry, a staunch death penalty advocate, made moves to expedite executions after a 15-year pause.

The underlying facts of the 1993 killing are stark. Police arrested Duncan on Dec. 18, 1993, after he was babysitting Haley in the home he shared with the girl’s mother in West Monroe. Duncan told law enforcement he had put the child in the bath, then went downstairs to wash dishes. When he heard a noise coming from the bathroom. he rushed upstairs to check on Haley and found her floating face down in the water. Haley was pronounced dead a few hours later.

Prosecutors initially booked Duncan for negligent homicide. but upgraded the charge to first-degree murder after Hayne and West conducted Haley’s medical exam and claimed they discovered evidence—including purported bite marks—that Haley had been sexually assaulted and intentionally drowned. After two weeks of testimony during the 1998 trial, the jury found Duncan guilty and sentenced him to death.

While Duncan waited for an execution date, his post-conviction attorneys uncovered evidence they argued pointed to his innocence. That included an expert witness who said Haley’s death was not a homicide but an accidental drowning. Duncan’s legal team also interviewed a jailhouse informant who recanted his earlier trial testimony that Duncan had confessed to the crime.

Duncan’s conviction was overturned in April of last year by former Ouachita Parish Judge Alvin Sharp. He was let out of prison on bail in December, but his freedom was still dependent on the state Supreme Court’s final decision after prosecutors appealed Sharp’s ruling.

Steve Tew, district attorney for Ouachita and Morehouse parishes, has maintained Duncan was guilty and should be put to death, and his office appealed Sharp’s ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

During oral arguments in April, Tew insisted Duncan’s guilt could not be debated because Duncan was the only person with Haley at the time of her death. “We don’t need the bite mark evidence to put Mr. Duncan in the apartment alone with this child,” Tew said.

Tew did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday. At the April hearing, he said that if the state Supreme Court refused to reinstate Duncan’s conviction, he would retry him, though he did not say what charge he might pursue.

Haley’s family has said prosecutors never addressed their concerns. Haley’s mother, Allison Layton Statham, has publicly supported Duncan’s release and the overturning of his conviction. Family members of Haley’s father, Lloyd Donald Oliveaux—who died in 1996—have also backed Duncan’s release. They have accused the state of refusing to meet with them after they repeatedly asked for a meeting with prosecutors to express concerns. according to the account presented in court-related reporting.

When asked about the prospect of Duncan being retried for murder, Chris Fabricant said, “If there is any sense of fairness and justice left, this should be the end of this case.”

For Duncan’s team, the decision is also part of a broader pattern. In the 28 years since Duncan’s trial. nine other prisoners have been set free after being convicted in part on inaccurate evidence given by West and Hayne. according to the record summarized in reporting on the case. Three of those men were on death row. Duncan was the last person awaiting an execution based on the pair’s work.

Duncan’s legal team includes the Innocence Project in New York, the Mwalimu Center for Justice in New Orleans, and the Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner law firm in Atlanta.

Louisiana Supreme Court Jimmie Chris Duncan Haley Oliveaux death penalty bite mark evidence Michael West Steven Hayne Innocence Project Jeff Landry Ouachita Parish