Junk Science And The Evolution Of Criminal Convictions

• Published date: 13 November 2023
• Law Firm: Shipman & Goodwin LLP
• Author: Ms Joette Katz

When the law catches up with changes in science, it's good for justice.

In 2017, the State of Connecticut, acting through then Hartford State's Attorney Gail Hardy, agreed that the 2001 murder conviction of Alfred Swinton should be vacated based on new DNA findings and the discrediting of other crucial evidence connecting Swinton to the murder of 28-year-old Carla Terry.

Dr. Karazulas, a bite mark analyst who had provided critical testimony linking Swinton to the 1991 murder, had testified at trial, based upon a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that Swinton "caused the bite mark that is depicted in the photographs" of the victim's breasts, and that the injury was inflicted "just before or at the time of death." Then, years later, Karazulas acknowledged that bite mark evidence has been discredited by the scientific community and that he no longer considered this to be a valid scientific basis for his testimony.

Additionally, DNA testing in 2015 and 2016 excluded Swinton from the male DNA samples collected on swabs taken off the bite marks on the victim, and from DNA from underneath the victim's fingernails and in her rape kit. But it was the fact that the odontology evidence connecting Swinton to the crime was now discredited ' that bite mark comparisons are no longer considered reliable ' that was largely responsible for his conviction being vacated.

As Chris Fabricant, then director of Strategic Litigation at the Innocence Project, remarked: "In the twilight of his long and distinguished career, Dr. Karazulas elevated the truth above personal considerations and now stands as an example of a forensic scientist honoring the duty to correct the record when new facts or data suggest that a miscarriage of justice has occurred."

Swinton, who was 51 years old and had no significant criminal record, always maintained his innocence and endured a lengthy trial in early 2001. He was convicted and sentenced to 60 years, and the appeal of that conviction was unsuccessful (State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781(2004)). His first claim on appeal was that the trial court had improperly admitted into evidence computer enhanced photographs and computer-generated exhibits without an adequate foundation. Specifically, he challenged the admissibility of two separate but related pieces of evidence: first, photographs of a bite mark on the victim's body that were enhanced using a computer software program known as Lucis, and second, images of the defendant's teeth overlaid...