Jimmie Chris Duncan is on death row in Louisiana for a crime that experts now say may never have happened. His case has become a focal point for wrongful conviction advocates because of its ties to two of the most infamous names in forensic misconduct: Michael West and Steven Hayne. These discredited forensic figures have been linked to multiple wrongful convictions, many of which have been overturned. Yet, despite mounting evidence that Duncan was convicted based on junk science, Louisiana continues to push forward with his execution.
Investigative journalist Richard Webster has been digging into Duncan’s case in collaboration with ProPublica, exposing troubling details about the conviction and the political battle over clemency in Louisiana. In a conversation with the Vanguard, Webster laid out how the case came to his attention, the role of flawed forensics, and the impact of the state’s political landscape on efforts to halt Duncan’s execution.
The Last Victim of Michael West and Steven Hayne
Michael West, a forensic odontologist whose bite-mark analysis has been debunked, and Steven Hayne, a pathologist whose testimony has been instrumental in wrongful convictions, played key roles in putting Duncan on death row. Their names have appeared in numerous high-profile exonerations, including cases documented in Radley Balko’s The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist and a Netflix documentary series.
Webster emphasized just how significant their involvement was in Duncan’s case.
“It’s amazing just the impact they had,” he told me. “Everyone has told me that [Duncan] is the last one of their so-called victims on death row.”
If Louisiana moves forward with Duncan’s execution, it could be the final chapter in a long history of wrongful convictions facilitated by these two disgraced forensic specialists.
A Governor’s Change of Heart and the Political Roadblock to Clemency
Webster first became interested in Duncan’s case while reporting on Louisiana’s death penalty debate. In 2023, then-Governor John Bel Edwards made a surprising announcement: he was opposed to capital punishment. This was a rare stance for a Louisiana governor, a state with one of the most active death rows in the country.
His announcement set off a chain reaction.
“A bunch of defense attorneys filed clemency applications for all of Louisiana’s death row inmates,” Webster explained. “And Jeff Landry, who is now our governor, was the Attorney General at the time. He’s a staunch supporter of the death penalty, and he sued the pardon board to stop any of those clemency applications from going forward.”
As Webster covered this political fight, one name kept coming up among opponents of the death penalty: Jimmie Chris Duncan.
“They were all saying, ‘Listen, this is a guy who, by all accounts, looks like he is innocent of the crime that he was convicted of,’” Webster said. “And that’s what got the ball rolling.”
What Webster found in Duncan’s case was a familiar pattern: a conviction resting on unreliable forensic evidence, a state unwilling to revisit its mistakes, and a man facing execution despite serious doubts about his guilt.
The 1993 Tragedy That Led to a Death Sentence
To understand why Duncan is on death row, it’s important to revisit the circumstances of the case. In 1993, Duncan was in his early 20s and living with his girlfriend, Alison Olivo, in West Monroe, Louisiana. On the day of the incident, Alison went to work, leaving Duncan to babysit her 23-month-old daughter, Haley.
“He put her in the tub and then went to do some dishes,” Webster explained. “His family today acknowledges that that was a dumb thing to do—you don’t leave a 23-month-old alone in the tub. But when he heard some splashing and a noise, he went upstairs, and she was face down in the tub.”
Duncan immediately pulled Haley from the water and called 911. Paramedics arrived and attempted to revive her, but it was too late. What should have been ruled a tragic accident and possibly negligent homicide, quickly turned into a murder investigation.
Flawed Forensics and the Making of a Wrongful Conviction
The case against Duncan was built almost entirely on forensic testimony from Michael West and Steven Hayne.
Hayne conducted the autopsy and determined that Haley’s death was a homicide. His report claimed that the toddler had suffered sexual abuse—findings that have since been called into question by modern forensic experts.
West, whose bite-mark analysis has been widely discredited, testified that bruises on Haley’s body matched Duncan’s dental impressions. This was a common tactic for West, who frequently testified in criminal cases, providing what was later revealed to be unreliable or even fabricated forensic evidence.
“There’s no DNA evidence that you can point to and say he’s definitively not the person,” Webster said. “But the forensic evidence that was used to convict him has been completely debunked.”
Since Duncan’s conviction, bite-mark analysis has been rejected by the scientific community, and numerous cases involving West’s testimony have been overturned.
“The difficult thing about this one compared to most wrongful convictions is that there’s no DNA,” Webster admitted. “But the forensic evidence that put him on death row would never hold up today.”
Despite these flaws, Louisiana has refused to reopen Duncan’s case.
The Role of Politics in Blocking Justice
Duncan’s case is not just about forensic misconduct—it’s also about Louisiana’s political resistance to revisiting death penalty cases.
When Governor Edwards announced his opposition to the death penalty, defense attorneys saw a rare opportunity to secure clemency for Duncan and others on death row. But the backlash was swift.
Jeff Landry, then Attorney General and now Governor, took legal action to prevent clemency hearings from even being considered.
“The state had an opportunity to correct this,” Webster said. “But politics got in the way.”
Landry’s hardline stance on capital punishment makes it unlikely that Duncan will get another chance to prove his innocence.
The Dangerous Precedent of Executing Without Certainty
Duncan’s case underscores the dangers of capital punishment when wrongful convictions are not only possible but likely. His conviction rested on forensic techniques that have since been exposed as unreliable, yet the state refuses to reconsider his guilt.
Unlike many wrongful conviction cases, there is no exonerating DNA evidence. Instead, the key issue is that the forensic testimony used to convict him has been discredited. This case highlights a troubling reality: the justice system is often unwilling to correct its mistakes, even when a person’s life is at stake.
Louisiana has already seen multiple wrongful convictions overturned in cases involving West and Hayne. If Duncan is executed, he could become another tragic statistic—a man put to death for a crime that may never have happened.
A Final Chance for Justice?
Duncan’s supporters continue to push for a new review of his case, arguing that the state must not allow junk science to dictate life-and-death decisions. But with a governor determined to uphold capital punishment and a political climate hostile to clemency, time is running out.
“This is a guy who, by all accounts, looks like he is innocent of the crime that he was convicted of,” Webster reiterated. “And yet, unless something changes, he’s going to be executed.”
Duncan’s case serves as a stark warning about the flaws in America’s justice system. Without intervention, Louisiana may soon execute a man convicted on the basis of now-discredited forensic evidence.
The question remains: Will Louisiana allow this miscarriage of justice to proceed, or will it finally confront the truth before it’s too late?
