Mississippi Court Overturns Convictions in 1993 Slayings

Hana Eddib 10/29/17

Forensics current event 6

Amy, Jeff. “Mississippi Court Overturns Convictions in 1993 Slayings.” Forensic Magazine, 27 Oct. 2017, www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/10/mississippi-court-overturns-convictions-1993-slayings.

On October 27th, a Mississippi Supreme Court revoked a man's conviction of three murder charges due to the questionable use of bite mark evidence. In 1993, Sherwood Brown was convicted of slaying 82-year-old Betty Boyd, 48-year-old Verline Boyd and 13-year-old Evangela Boyd. Because jurors believed he committed these murders while also committed felony child abuse, they sentenced him to death. Forensic evidence at the crime scene included all three bodies in Betty Boyd’s house, and a trail of bloody footprints lead to multiple houses including Brown’s. When arrested, his sneakers matched the pattern of the shoe prints found in the house. Although, at the time DNA testing didn’t exist, the Supreme Court granted it’s use in 2012. That proved that the blood from the shoe prints were male while the blood in the house was females. The evidence is question was a bite mark on Brown’s wrist said to be given by Evangela.  The article explained, “Dr. Michael West, a forensic odontologist who has testified in many Mississippi criminal cases, determined the cut matched Boyd’s teeth, a conclusion echoed by a second forensic odontologist at the trial” (Amy 2017). However, when swabbing the inside of Boyd’s mouth for evidence they found that the male DNA within her mouth did not match Brown. Tucker Carrington, a lawyer for the Mississippi Innocence Project, states, “this result is more evidence supporting a 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences that found bite marks could not be used to reliably identify an individual” (Amy 2017). Upon fresh evidence, the court scheduled a new hearing. The state has denied past requests for appeals, and dismissed the testimony of someone claiming Brown told him he was guilty, since he was doing it for a lesser sentence. Brown’s parents claim he was at home at the time of the crime and forensic evidence of fingerprints, palm prints and hair don’t match Brown creating the question; is he guilty?

This article is very relevant to the world. It discusses the issues with forensic evidence and it’s importance on a case. This is what we are studying in forensics and it is important to identify how what we are learning is used in the real world.

The article explained the circumstances of the case very well. It was very easy to follow. It was also easy to identify the evidence being questioned. However, I would’ve liked more information explaining the history of appeals and trial history as it was confusing to follow. I also would’ve wanted clarification on whether the conviction that was overturned who the death penalty or the guilty conviction in it’s entirety as that was hard to follow as well. However, overall, I think the article was very informative and interesting to follow.