I don’t get why prosecution would push forward with the wrong conviction if the evidence is clear that the forensics is bad.

The original title is:

> He Was Convicted Based on Allegedly Fabricated Bite Mark Analysis. Louisiana Wants to Execute Him Anyway.

I got the "may be executed anyway" phrasing from the parsely-title in the HTML source:

> Jimmie Duncan, Convicted on Allegedly Fabricated Bite Mark Analysis, May Be Executed by Louisiana Anyway