Convicting the Innocent
DNA Exonerations Database

Ray Krone

First NameRay
Last NameKrone
Year of Conviction1992
Year of Exoneration2002
Testing inculpated culpritCold Hit
State of ConvictionArizona
Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea2 Trials
Type of CrimeRape and Murder
Death SentenceYes
Gender of ExonereeMale
Race of exonereeWhite
Type of Innocence Defense
  • Alibi
Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense

● The exoneree was the only witness testifying in support of the alibi

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

Missing transcript for defense case

Types of evidence at trial
  • DNA excluded
  • Forensic Evidence
Type of Forensic Evidence
  • Bite Mark
  • DNA
  • Hair
  • Serology
Types of Flawed Forensics
  • Invalid
  • Not Disclosed
Reason why invalid(1), (6) Invalid individualization as to bite marks; masking
Brief Quote / Description of Testimony

The analyst testified: “A. My opinion is that the teeth that are represented to me as being Ray Krone’s teeth did cause the injury patterns that we call bite marks. Q. And how certain are you of your opinion? A. I’m certain. It’s a very good match.” Claims that bite mark comparison “has all the veracity, all of the strength that a fingerprint would have.” The defense also never learned that FBI expert Skip Sperber had examined the bite marks before Rawson, and concluded, “It could not have been clearer. . . Ray Krone had two higher teeth than his incisors that would have marked when he bit. Those weren’t there in the evidence.” See Part II.D. for a discussion of this case.

Highest level reachedAppeal
Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction
  • Jury Instructions
  • State Law Evidence Claim
Claims granted, resulting in preexon. reversal
  • Jury Instructions
  • State Law Evidence Claim
Citations to judicial opinions

State v. Krone, 897 P.2d 621 (Ariz. 1995)
Krone v. Hotham, 890 P.2d 1149 (Ariz. 1995)
Krone v. Arizona, 527 U.S. 1043 (1999)

Read more about this exoneration