Skip to content

New trial granted for an Alabama death row inmate due to the emergence of recently discovered DNA evidence

Federal judge orders retrial for death row inmate following fresh DNA evidence implicating another individual, after a span of three decades.

New DNA evidence leading to a retrial for a condemned Alabama prisoner, as directed by a judge.
New DNA evidence leading to a retrial for a condemned Alabama prisoner, as directed by a judge.

New trial granted for an Alabama death row inmate due to the emergence of recently discovered DNA evidence

In a significant turn of events, Chief U.S. District Judge Emily C. Marks has ordered a new trial for Christopher Barbour, a 56-year-old Alabama death row inmate. This decision comes following recent forensic testing that has cast doubt on Barbour's original conviction for a 1992 murder.

The victim of the crime was Thelma Bishop Roberts. New DNA testing has revealed that the semen found on Roberts' body does not match Barbour or the man Barbour initially implicated in his confession. Instead, the DNA evidence matches Jerry Tyrone Jackson, a neighbour of the victim who is currently incarcerated for a separate unrelated murder.

Judge Marks' ruling states that Barbour has shown the prosecution's use of false evidence may have influenced the trial's outcome. The state is alleged to have knowingly withheld bench notes from the initial forensics report that excluded Barbour and the man he said raped Roberts as the source of the DNA.

Barbour's legal team has also alleged that a detective physically assaulted Barbour to precipitate a confession. Barbour later recanted his confession, claiming he was coerced by police.

In light of these findings, Judge Marks has given the state 90 days to prepare for the new trial. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall's office has announced its intention to appeal this decision.

For more information, contact reporter Alex Jobin at ajobin@our website.

This development in the case of Christopher Barbour marks a crucial step towards justice, raising questions about the integrity of the original trial and the role of the state in withholding evidence. As the case progresses, it is hoped that truth and justice will prevail.

Read also: