Editorial: Has James Duckett lost his last chance at proving innocence?

The American criminal justice system was designed around the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” In the eyes of the public (and, in many ways, state law) that conviction is a one-way street - no matter how shoddily a particular case has been handled, or what new evidence has come to light.

Florida has carved out a few exceptions, though. The most important is a 2001 law that establishes a right to DNA testing for inmates who want to challenge their convictions or sentence. The law isn't perfect, raising several barriers to testing, but still, DNA evidence has featured in 17 of Florida's 30 death row exonerations.

But matching justice - and its goal of finality - to evolving technology is challenging. The decades-old cases of James Duckett, a former Mascotte police officer convicted of the July 1987 rape and murder of 11-year-old Teresa McAbee - has taken some dramatic turns in the past few months that lawmakers should pay attention to.

On February 27, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a death warrant for Duckett, part of a rapid-fire series of execution orders.

That kicked off a flurry of activity - starting with those who questioned why this was the first warrant for Duckett after more than three decades on death row. The answer probably has a lot to do with the doubts that have always plagued this case: The original conviction turned largely on eyewitness testimony that has since been recanted, and scientific evidence that has since been debunked.

Attorneys for Duckett - who has always maintained his innocence - pushed hard to have a DNA sample taken from Teresa's clothing studied, using a new technique that they said could exclude Duckett as her murderer.

This wasn't Duckett's first attempt to have the sample studied. But in 2003, it was considered too degraded to be capable of producing a match using methods available at the time. The defense argued that a newer method, known as SNP testing, made it possible to perform sample matching on much smaller fragments of DNA. Duckett wanted those tests performed before he was executed.

A battle for accuracy

Surprisingly, the state did not put up a fight - at least, not to the idea that new testing should be performed.

But they fought hard to send it to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement labs, which does not perform SNP testing.The defense had lined up one of the few labs in the nation capable of doing the comparison - Texas-based Othram Laboratories. The founder of Othram testified that his lab could probably get the sample processed within a few weeks.

But instead of Othram, FDLE sent the sample to to DNA Labs International in Deerfield Beach. DLI is reputable and conducts a lot of testing for the state, but was probably the wrong choice here. It could process the sample, but used a technique to extract the data from the DNA that many experts say is not the best method to use in criminal cases.

In addition, DLI was not equipped to perform the complicated analysis of the data that that might exclude Duckett as the person who raped Teresa McAbee. The state knew that, but still insisted on that lab. As expected, DLI reported the test "inconclusive" because it couldn't do the deep analysis needed to determine whether there was enough DNA to provide a match. In its report to the circuit judge, FDLE said a more advanced lab might be able to do a better job. It mentioned Othram as one of two possibilities.

And that's where things took a startling turn. The prosecutors insisted that the DNA testing that Duckett was entitled to had been completed, despite the fact that the advanced comparison still hadn't been performed. Circuit Judge Brian Welke surprisingly agreed. The defense appealed.

In a ruling infused with a low-key sense of irritation, six of the justices on the Supreme Court (who had already stayed Duckett's execution) pointed out the obvious: The DNA comparison couldn't be considered inconclusive because it was not complete. It ordered the state to hand over the data DLI extracted from the sample. At a hearing today, attorneys plan to discuss the timeline for the next steps in the case.

Unresolved doubt

It remains to be seen whether a more advanced lab can determine whether or not the DNA came from Duckett - and whether the decision to have the initial sample tested at DLI, further degraded the genetic material remaining in the sample.

No matter what happens, it's clear that new rules are needed for advanced scientific testing, prohibiting the use of labs that aren't advanced enough to do the testing a particular lab case demands.

Unfortunately, that won't resolve the very real dilemma in the Duckett case. Under current law, Duckett is required to prove that the evidence being reconsidered would likely lead a jury to declare him not guilty - and the justice system is not required to take notice of the way other evidence in the case has fallen apart. It's hard to see how the courts can allow Duckett's execution to proceed if it becomes apparent that the evidence that might have proved his innocence was mishandled at the insistence of the state, leaving nothing behind to be re-tested.

There is no active death warrant for Duckett; the one the court previously stayed has since expired, though he remains in a highly restrictive Death Watch cell, watching as man after man is led away to his death. Prosecutors say they intend to seek a new warrant as soon as they can. But this should not be a matter of ticking off the boxes to rush an execution of someone who has a real claim of innocence, and the Supreme Court should be very cautious about sanctioning an approach where the state is prioritizing speed over the cause of justice.

The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Krys Fluker, Executive Editor Roger Simmons and Viewpoints Editor Jay Reddick. Use insight@orlandosentinel.com to contact us.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published May 8, 2026 at 9:52 AM.