Convicting the Innocent
DNA Exonerations Database

Curtis McCarty

First NameCurtis
Last NameMcCarty
Year of Conviction1986
Year of Exoneration2007
State of ConvictionOklahoma
Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty PleaTrial
Type of CrimeRape and Murder
Death SentenceYes
Gender of ExonereeMale
Race of exonereeWhite
Type of Innocence Defense
  • Alibi
Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense

● Two alibi witnesses testified for the defendant.

Did the defendant testify at trial?Yes
Quotes from Exoneree Testimony

Defendant described his whereabouts the day of the crime, denied committing the murder or learning that it had occurred until the next day.

Types of evidence at trial
  • Forensic Evidence
  • Informant
Type of Forensic Evidence
  • Hair
  • Serology
Types of Flawed Forensics
  • Invalid
  • Not Disclosed
Reason why invalid(1), (3), (5), Masking; false probability; hair match
Brief Quote / Description of Testimony

The victim and McCarty were both A secretors. The analyst explicitly denied masking could occur, stating “My opinion is that the seminal [sic] fluid found in [victim’s] pubic combings was not mixed with [victim’s] own body samples.” The analyst then testified that 26 percent of population is type A, then divided that in half stating half of that population is female. See SERI Report for discussion of this testimony, Part II.A.1 for a description of the problem of masking and non-quantification and discussion of similar cases and Part II.A.3. for discussion of false division cases. The analyst concluded as to comparison of hair from the crime scene with McCarty’s hair that “That he was in fact there.” This differed from earlier results that were concealed. Soon after the murder in 1983, the analyst compared hairs from the crime scene with McCarty’s and found that they were not similar. Police interviewed McCarty several times over the next three years, but he was not arrested until 1985. At that time, analyst covertly changed her notes and reversed her findings, saying now that the crime scene hairs could have been McCarty’s. Attorneys for McCarty did not discover the change in analyst’s notes until 2000, when analyst was under investigation for fraud in other cases. See Part II.B.2 and II.F.1 for discussion of the hair comparison aspects of this case.

Jailhouse informant, Co-defendant, Incentivized WitnessJ
Examples of Non-Public or Corroborated Facts and Inconsistencies● Non-public details - jailhouse informant claimed to have heard defendant admit to drugging, raping, stabbing girl in another's house
Quotes regarding any deal or leniency with informant, or prior use of informant

Informant denied any deal or leniency as did prosecutor in closing argument.

Highest level reachedState Post­ Conviction
Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction
  • Actual Innocence
  • Brady
  • Double Jeopardy
  • Due Process
  • Fourth Amendment
  • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
  • Jackson Claim
  • Jury Instructions
  • Jury Selection
  • Miranda or Edwards Claim
  • Prosecutorial Misconduct
  • State Law Evidence Claim
  • Willfull Destruction of Material Evidence
Harmless Error Rulings
  • G
  • HE
Citations to judicial opinions

McCarty v. State, 765 P.2d 1215 (Okl. Cr. 1988)
McCarty v. State, 977 P.2d 1116 (Okl. Cr. 1998)
McCarty v. State, 989 P.2d 990 (Okl. Cr. 1999)
McCarthy v. Oklahoma, 528 U.S. 1009 (1999)
McCarty v. State, 114 P.3d 1089 (Okl. Cr. 2005)
McCarty v. Oklahoma, 546 U.S. 1020 (2005) (Mem.)

Read more about this exoneration

Previous post
←  Dale Mahan