300 So.3d 1011
Miss.2020Background
- 1992: Georgia Kemp (84) was raped, stabbed, strangled, and her body showed alleged bite marks; her body was exhumed and examined by forensic odontologist Dr. Michael West.
- Dr. West compared impressions of Eddie Howard’s teeth (Howard had a removable partial denture) to marks on Kemp and testified at trial that one breast bite was an "identical" match and that Howard was the biter.
- Howard was convicted at retrial (2000) and sentenced to death; prior appeals and a first PCR challenge failed.
- Postconviction DNA testing (granted later) found male DNA on the knife blade that excluded Howard; no male DNA linked Howard on clothing, fingernails, or the sexual-assault kit.
- Since trial, the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) revised its guidelines (2013, 2016) to bar individualization in open-population cases and now permits only exclusion, non‑exclusion, or inconclusive opinions.
- The trial court denied the PCR petition; the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, holding the new DNA results and the change in bite-mark science are newly discovered, material evidence warranting a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Howard's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence (DNA + changed bite‑mark science) would probably produce a different verdict at a new trial | New DNA (male DNA on knife excluding Howard) plus ABFO guideline changes make Dr. West’s individualization inadmissible and undermine confidence in the verdict | DNA absence of Howard and presence of another male is not dispositive; criticism of West and bite‑mark science existed at trial, so this is not "new" material evidence | Court: New DNA plus ABFO guideline changes are material; together they probably would produce a different result — grant new trial (conviction and death sentence vacated) |
| Admissibility now of Dr. West’s individualization testimony | ABFO no longer permits individualization; current science shows bite‑mark ID is unreliable, so West’s trial-style identification would be inadmissible under M.R.E. 702 | ABFO guidelines are nonbinding; West was vigorously cross‑examined and his credibility/issues were known at trial | Court: Under current scientific consensus and ABFO rules, individualization testimony like West’s would not be permitted; that eliminates the State’s primary physical link |
| Materiality of DNA results (unknown male on knife blade) | Presence of another man’s DNA on the murder weapon is new and a reasonable juror could conclude it points to a different perpetrator | Knife handled repeatedly over decades; DNA on blade (not handle) may reflect contamination and does not prove another killer; lack of Howard DNA was argued at trial | Court: The unknown male DNA is newly discovered and materially undermines confidence in the outcome when combined with the loss of bite‑mark individualization |
| Whether the claim is barred because West was cross‑examined and criticized at trial (i.e., not "new") | Change in scientific consensus and formal ABFO guideline revisions are newly discovered facts unavailable at trial | Criticisms and challenges to bite‑mark evidence and West’s credibility were available at trial and on earlier appeals/PCRs, so this is cumulative/impeaching | Court: The ABFO guideline changes and the current scientific understanding are new and material; prior cross‑examination does not negate that new science now renders the prior identification inadmissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Chamberlin v. State, 55 So. 3d 1046 (Miss. 2010) (heightened scrutiny and resolving bona fide doubts in favor of capital defendants)
- Crawford v. State, 867 So. 2d 196 (Miss. 2003) (standard for newly discovered evidence in PCR — must probably produce different result)
- Meeks v. State, 781 So. 2d 109 (Miss. 2001) (materiality requirement for new evidence)
- De La Beckwith v. State, 707 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 1997) (reasonable‑probability standard for materiality)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (definition of "reasonable probability" undermining confidence in outcome)
- Howard v. State, 853 So. 2d 781 (Miss. 2003) (direct appeal addressing Dr. West’s bite‑mark testimony)
- Howard v. State, 945 So. 2d 326 (Miss. 2006) (prior PCR proceedings and treatment of bite‑mark claims)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (framework for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance referenced)
- Ex parte Chaney, 563 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (post‑conviction relief granted where evolving science undermined bite‑mark evidence)