A unanimous Louisiana Supreme Court decision that a man was factually innocent of the 1993 rape and murder of his girlfriend’s toddler has not ended the legal controversy surrounding the case. The district attorney for Ouachita and Morehouse parishes says he intends to pursue a new prosecution.
Court finds conviction unreliable
On June 29, the state’s high court endorsed a lower-court ruling that Jimmie “Chris” Duncan’s conviction was based on evidence that courts later found unreliable. The judges concluded that, when the newly available evidence is considered alongside the record, a reasonable juror would not have returned a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Had the ‘new’ evidence, in light of all relevant evidence, been presented at trial, no rational juror would have found Duncan guilty of the first degree murder of Haley beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The ruling did not rest on a narrow procedural point. Instead, multiple judges determined the original verdict itself was mistaken. The case has drawn attention because Duncan spent 28 years on death row for the crime, and the court’s language points to fundamental problems with the forensic and medical evidence used at trial.
Prosecutor signals intent to retry
Despite the high court’s unanimous finding, Ouachita and Morehouse Parish District Attorney Steve Tew told a reporter he plans to charge Duncan again. Tew said he has not yet decided which degree of murder to pursue.
Duncan’s post-conviction release was secured under Act 104 of 2021, a law passed during the 2021 legislative session that created a pathway for prisoners to seek review when new evidence undermines the reliability of a conviction. That statute was central to the proceedings that led multiple judges to reexamine the evidence in Duncan’s case.
What the record shows
Reporting and court findings highlighted serious doubts about the forensic support for the original verdict. Bite-mark analysis played a role in the conviction and has since been discredited in many forensic science communities. Medical experts who have reviewed the case questioned whether the toddler, who had a history of seizures, had been sexually assaulted as originally concluded; an alternate explanation proposed by defense supporters is that the child suffered a seizure and drowned while briefly unattended in a partially filled bathtub.
- 1993 — Original conviction for rape and murder.
- 28 years — Time Duncan spent on death row.
- Act 104 (2021) — Law enabling the post-conviction review cited in the case.
- June 29 — Date the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision.
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Conviction for the death of a 23-month-old |
| 2021 | Passage of Act 104, key to post-conviction review |
| 2026 | State Supreme Court unanimously affirms factual innocence finding (June 29) |
The court’s opinion was written by Justice Cade Cole, a jurist whose background includes work with conservative organizations, underscoring the unanimity transcends typical ideological divides on the bench.
Local and statewide implications
The case revives long-running debates in Louisiana about the reliability of forensic methods, the finality of convictions, and the scope of prosecutorial discretion. If prosecutors proceed with a new trial after a unanimous finding of factual innocence, it could prompt legal challenges that touch on constitutional protections, including double jeopardy principles — questions judges may yet have to answer.
For families and communities, the ruling and the unresolved prosecutorial decision reopen painful memories of a violent death and decades of litigation. The situation also places a spotlight on Act 104 and how courts, defense lawyers and prosecutors use the law to re-evaluate old convictions in light of evolving science and new evidence.
Observers in Monroe and across Louisiana will be watching whether the district attorney files new charges, and if so, what legal arguments defense teams will raise to challenge a retrial after the state’s highest court called the original verdict unreliable.
As the next steps unfold, the case is likely to be referenced in broader reform conversations about forensic standards, post-conviction review and the safeguards that should exist when courts determine a long-standing conviction was wrong.
