The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has reversed the con­vic­tion and death sen­tence of Curtis Edward McCarty because the state’s case was large­ly based on the tes­ti­mo­ny of a police chemist who has since been fired for shod­dy and unre­li­able lab work. The court ordered a new tri­al for McCarty, who has been on death row more than two decades for a 1982 mur­der. At issue is the expert tes­ti­mo­ny of for­mer Oklahoma City police chemist Joyce Gilchrist dur­ing McCarty’s cap­i­tal tri­al. Gilchrist had been with the police depart­ment for 21 years when she was fired in 2001 fol­low­ing inves­ti­ga­tions of her foren­sic work. Based on a hear­ing regard­ing the tri­al evi­dence, an Oklahoma County District Court con­clud­ed that Gilchrist either lost or destroyed crit­i­cal evi­dence in McCarty’s case. 

In an opin­ion grant­i­ng a new tri­al for McCarty, the Court of Criminal Appeals found, ​“Ms. Gilchrist, while act­ing as an agent of the State and in rela­tion to her role as an expert in Petitioner’s case, with­held evi­dence, most like­ly lost or inten­tion­al­ly destroyed impor­tant and poten­tial­ly excul­pa­ble (or incrim­i­nat­ing) evi­dence, pro­vid­ed flawed lab­o­ra­to­ry analy­sis and doc­u­men­ta­tion of her work, tes­ti­fied in a man­ner that exceed­ed accept­able lim­its of foren­sic sci­ence, and altered lab reports and hand­writ­ten notes in an effort to pre­vent detec­tion of mis­con­duct; and as a result of Ms. Gilchrist’s actions, Petitioner did not receive a fair tri­al and resen­tenc­ing pro­ceed­ing.” (Associated Press, June 15, 2005, and McCarty v. State, 2005 OK CR 10, Case No. PCD-2002 – 1493 June 14, 2005). See also Innocence.

Citation Guide