Abstract
On December 29, 1992, Phoenix, Arizona letter carrier Ray Krone answered a knock at his door. On his doorstep he found police officers seeking to question him about the murder ofa bartender he knew. The police asked Krone to bite a Styrofoam mold so his dental impression could be compared to bite-marks on the dead woman's body. Krone, who had no criminal record, readily complied because he knew the bite-mark would not match his dental impression: he was innocent. Krone was stunned when police later arrested him based on a local dentist's opinion that Krone's teeth made the bite-marks on the victim's body. Even after he was taken into custody, Krone felt certain that police would soon realize their mistake and release him. Instead, the authorities kept him in custody and eventually tried him for capital murder. At trial, there was little evidence against Krone other than a forensic odontologist's testimony that Krone's teeth made the bite-marks on the victim's skin.6 Based on this identification, Krone was convicted and sentenced to death. After Krone had spent ten years in prison, DNA evidence exonerated him. He was released, and the prosecuting attorney apologized to him.
Recommended Citation
DeCoux, Elizabeth L.
(2007)
"The Admission of Unreliable Expert Testimony Offered by the Prosecution:
What's Wrong with Daubert and How to Make It Right,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2007:
No.
1, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2007/iss1/4