|Year of Conviction||1986|
|Year of Exoneration||2007|
|State of Conviction||Oklahoma|
|Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea||Trial|
|Type of Crime||Rape and Murder|
|Gender of Exoneree||Male|
|Race of exoneree||White|
|Type of Innocence Defense|
|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|
|Type of Forensic Evidence|
|Types of Flawed Forensics|
|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 Witness||J|
|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 reached||State Post Conviction|
|Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction|
|Harmless Error Rulings|
|Citations to judicial opinions|
McCarty v. State, 765 P.2d 1215 (Okl. Cr. 1988)