An Alabama man who spent more than four decades in prison for killing his wife will be getting a new trial.
Charles McCrory was convicted and sentenced to life over the death of his wife, Julie Bonds McCrory, in May 1985, but could soon be free after a federal judge ordered that he get a re-trial for the murder or be released from prison.
The case rested predominantly on two small marks on Julie’s arm which the state and its expert said were bite marks that Charles made in a rageful, brutal attack.
Today, the technique of matching bite marks to a person’s teeth is considered junk science. And the dentist who long ago testified against him has recanted, saying he can’t even be sure the mark was made by teeth at all.
Chief US District Judge Austin Huffaker Jr wrote in a Monday order: ‘The bitemark evidence clearly prejudiced the outcome of McCrory’s trial, especially in light of the other evidence presented at trial.
‘The non-bitemark evidence from which the jury could convict McCrory was thin.’
Six years ago, the state offered McCrory to walk out of prison if he admitted to killing his wife – which he declined: ‘What am I going to do, make up a story?
‘I kind of chuckled… I’m not going to plead guilty to something I didn’t do,’ he told AL.com.
Charles McCrory spent nearly four decades in prison after being sentenced for life for the killing of his wife
Julie and Charles McCrory were in the middle of a divorce when Julie was found dead in her apartment in 1985
Two bite marks were found on Julie’s upper right arm as well as five ‘chop’ wounds to her head, 11 puncture wounds to her chest, fractured jaw bones, bruises
Judge Huffaker’s order said the Alabama Attorney General’s Office has 180 days to begin a new trial for McCrory or release him from prison.
McCrory was 26 years old and worked as a tech worker and volunteer paramedic. Despite no DNA, confessions or clear motive suggesting his guilt, he was always the main suspect in his wife’s killing.
There was also no blood found on his clothes or in his apartment.
Dr Richard Souviron, a forensic dentist in Florida who previously matched a victim’s wounds to Ted Bundy’s teeth in his 1979 trial, testified at McCrory’s trial that the two marks on Julie’s arm matched her husband’s teeth.
The court ruled on Souviron’s testimony as the sole physical evidence – a move which Huffaker criticized to have ‘resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial.’
Huffaker added that the state court’s decision in 2022 to deny Charles’s request for a new trial was ‘both an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.’
Charles lived in a small apartment down the street from his wife and toddler son in Andalusia, Covington County, when the two were going through a divorce.
The two went to couple’s therapy, spent time with their son, and had sex before Charles went back to his apartment on the night of May 30, 1985, he said.
The two were often together and Julie’s date book showed the possibility of her husband moving back in, AL.com reported.
The method of bite mark matching that was the basis for McCrory’s conviction is considered junk science today
Charles and Julie McCrory’s son, Chad, lives in Alabama today. The Daily Mail contacted him for comment
Six years ago, the state court offered Charles McCrory to walk out of prison if he admitted killing his wife. He declined
Join the discussion
How should our justice system handle convictions based on now-discredited forensic evidence?
Charles said he heard about the murder the next morning, when his paramedic radio signaled a call for help at his wife’s home.
Julie was found lying in the front doorway of her home – severely beaten with five ‘chop’ wounds to her head, 11 puncture wounds to her chest, fractured jaw bones, bruises and two small marks on her upper right arm.
The cause of the puncture marks was never confirmed.
At trial in October 1985, the case hinged on circumstantial evidence like McCrory’s behavior and disputed witness statements as to cars at the family home.
The two small marks that Souviron said were made by McCrory’s upper teeth were the only physical evidence.
McCrory was convicted and sent to prison for the rest of his life, despite the lack of evidence.
In recent years, the technique of bite mark evidence was questioned and considered ‘junk science’ by national groups saying that this type of analysis lacks data.
Souviron took back his testimony in a 2019 affidavit: ‘I no longer believe the individualized teeth marks comparison testimony I offered in his case was reliable or proper.’
He said he ‘would not’ give the same testimony today in Charles McCrory’s case, adding that he never actually examined Julie’s body and relied on photos instead.
Despite the dentist’s new statements, Alabama state courts denied a request from Charles’s team of lawyers for a new trial.
Prosecutors from the Alabama Attorney General’s Office argued in 2021 that jurors could have simply looked at pictures of Julie’s body and matched the markings themselves – to which the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals agreed.
Huffaker commented on the suggestion: ‘This finding blinks reality in light of the evidence.
‘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.’
‘It makes little sense that a lay jury could permissibly form a conclusion that no forensic expert could.’
Charles McCrory’s lawyers cited 39 known wrongful convictions and indictments made on the basis of bite mark forensics – two of which were made on testimonies by Souviron.
The Daily Mail contacted the Alabama Attorney General’s Office and McCrory for comment.
