home

Questioning Bite Mark Evidence

As TalkLeft discussed here, Roy Brown was convicted of a brutal murder on the basis of dubious bite mark evidence. Fifteen years later, a DNA analysis proved that the state's bite mark expert was wrong.

A piece in today's NY Times takes a helpful look at bike mark evidence.

What happened to Mr. Brown is hardly an aberration. Prosecutors have invoked bite-mark matches to secure convictions in numerous cases, only to see these convictions overturned when DNA or other evidence has become available.

In spite of the evolution of other forensic sciences, bite-mark analysis remains an inexact tool. A 1999 study by a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, a professional trade organization, found a 63 percent rate of false identifications.

Why do prosecutors consistently rely upon such consistently unreliable evidence?

There is, experts say, a mix of ignorance on the part of jurors and defense lawyers about the evidence’s scientific shortcomings and the overzealousness of prosecutors and their expert witnesses, who are seen as too quick to validate an unproven technique.

< Getting Up to Speed for Monday's Libby Trial | Bike Path Rapist Arrest Leads to Questions About Earlier Convictions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    interestingly enough (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:26:10 PM EST
    as also noted in the article, there is the current "CSI effect" in play. though it may well have been part of the mix when this case was originally tried (remember "Quincy"?): jurors who've been exposed to tv or movie versions of forensic evidence examination, and believe it's all real.

    as an example, there was a recent episode of "CSI", which dealt with this exact issue, bite mark evidence. at no point did any character point out the weaknesses of this type of forensic evidence, and the accused, confronted with this seemingly indisputable "evidence", confessed.

    as well, we've all been told that DNA evidence is 100% accurate, again, indisputable. turns out, that's not quite so, as noted on this very site.

    don't expect tv or the movies to educate the public, it remains for scientists and attorneys to be on their game.

    Ted Bundy? (none / 0) (#2)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    This was the first case in Florida's legal history that relied on bite-mark testimony, and the first time that a physical piece of evidence actually linked Bundy with one of his crimes.

    Would Bundy be convicted today on the same bite-mark testimony or would DNA have convicted him anyway?

    re judges (none / 0) (#3)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    and why do judges permit such testimony as if from experts, when false identifications outnumber true ones by almost 2 to 1?