The Marshall Project's Beth Schwartzapfel has written a piece questioning the use of bite mark evidence in criminal cases. Bite mark comparison, which aims to match a bite wound on a victim with a suspect's teeth, is misleading, Schwartzapfel reports.
Fourteen men have been exonerated after being convicted of crime on the basis of bite mark analysis. The National Academy of Science has found that the field of "forensic odontology" has never been scientifically proven. The academy also found that "'bite marks on the skin will change over time and can be distorted by the elasticity of the skin, the unevenness of the surface bite, and swelling and healing. These features may severely limit the validity of forensic odontology.”'
Schwartzapfel reports that the California Supreme Court, courts in Mississippi and a judge in Ohio are weighing whether bite mark evidence in contested convictions can be upheld.
Lawyer and Legal Journalist
