Are Bite Marks Inadmissible in Court?

Many people who were wrongfully convicted of crimes relied on false or misleading forensic evidence, including bite marks.

For over 15 years, The Innocence Project has been dedicated to eliminating false evidence and helping several people who were wrongfully convicted of murder be acquitted.

Reliability

Reliability in testing or measuring refers to the consistency of results that can be repeated. A scale that measures weight differently each time it’s used isn’t reliable.

Reliability is a critical element in forensic science, as it allows the court to verify whether certain evidence is legitimate. Furthermore, reliability plays an integral role in proving innocence when an accused does not admit guilt for their crime.

One common method to assess reliability is split-half reliability, which refers to a method where researchers administer two versions of the same test to a group of people and compare their results. For instance, if someone takes the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, split-half reliability would measure how closely these two versions correlate.

Another type of reliability is parallel forms reliability, which examines the correlation between different versions of an assessment tool that assesses the same construct, skill or knowledge base. For instance, if psychologists wanted to test critical thinking reliability, they might create a large set of questions related to the subject matter and randomly divide them into two versions.

Once the two versions of a test are compared and show similar results, then it can be concluded that both tests possess internal reliability.

Reliability can be challenging to prove, yet it’s essential if a test is meant to be valid. For instance, if all questions related to symptoms of anxiety are asked, then there’s likely that they will have anxiety disorder.

Bite marks are among the most discredited types of forensic evidence, and research suggests they may not be as reliable as other physical indicators. As such, prosecutors and judges must exercise extreme caution when considering whether bite mark evidence should be admissible in criminal cases.

Admissibility

Bite marks are an integral component of forensic odontology evidence in many cases, serving to identify the victim of a crime. They can be found on skin, body parts and items like knives and crawfish; in America they can even be traced back to an individual via dental impressions made on someone’s teeth.

Recent court rulings have invalidated the use of bite mark evidence, yet it remains admissible in some courts. For instance, Texas has ruled that bite mark evidence is reliable and relevant to determining guilt or innocence for defendants.

However, the court must exercise caution when using this type of forensic evidence. It must also consider its effect on the jury and whether it could bias their verdict.

Therefore, it is critical to review the scientific foundation of a particular technique before using it in court. Doing so allows the court to decide whether the technique is valid and reliable, and if so, whether or not it should be admitted into evidence in the case at hand.

Furthermore, the science behind bite mark analysis has evolved dramatically over the last two decades. Unfortunately, there have been many wrongful convictions across America due to inaccurate bite mark analysis.

To combat these convictions, The Innocence Project has worked to pass legislation in multiple states that allows those wrongfully convicted of crimes to return to court and have their case reviewed when new scientific information alters expert testimony about evidence such as bite marks. This can make the difference between a fair trial and one marred by bad science.

By advocating for “changed science” statutes in six states–California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, Texas and Wyoming–we’ve helped pave the way for victims and their attorneys to bring cases back to court when the science behind their conviction has been proven incorrect or invalid. These laws give victims and attorneys the power to challenge a case in court when new evidence surfaces that challenges its validity or leads to its cancellation.

Robert Rogers is currently fighting for his freedom after being wrongfully convicted of murder due to a fake bite mark. According to Mark Loudon-Brown, this testimony was thrust upon Rogers because there were no other physical evidence or eyewitnesses at the crime.

Cross-examination

Cross-examination is an integral component of the trial process and gives defense attorneys the opportunity to impeach a prosecution witness whose testimony is in dispute. They may do this either indirectly (through another witness) or directly, provided it’s allowed under the evidence code.

Successful cross-examination requires formulating a primary goal and then pinpointing the specific points you wish to make during your examination of the witness. For instance, if your primary aim is for them to admit that their victim was wearing a dark jacket when he attacked them, you might use questions and responses like these:

Furthermore, it’s essential to recognize that cross-examination isn’t meant to make a witness appear bad. Instead, its primary goal is to challenge the accuracy of a prosecution’s case.

Similar to DNA, there are no databases of bite marks and dental casts available that allow comparisons with enough individuals to establish the reliability of a forensic technique like bite mark analysis. As a result, several wrongful convictions have been brought forth recently by organizations like Wisconsin Innocence Project against its use as evidence in criminal cases.

It is essential to remember that courts only accept science into evidence that meets Frye and Daubert standards. These criteria guarantee any admitted evidence is not only pertinent to a crime, but also proven reliable in court proceedings.

For instance, the Wisconsin Innocence Project has successfully demonstrated that Robert Lee Stinson was wrongfully convicted of murder based solely on false bite mark evidence. If this type of evidence has been used against you in court, you are entitled to a new trial in order to prove your innocence.

To reduce the weight juries give bite mark examiners’ conclusions, it is essential that they are cross-examined about their subjectivity and how they handled task-relevant information. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that this method of cross-examination tends to lead to greater guilty verdicts in trials where bite mark examiners have been properly questioned.

Daubert hearing

The Daubert hearing is a court’s opportunity to consider an expert testimony exclusion motion that cannot be supported by competent and reliable scientific principles. It plays an essential role in the trial process as it requires experts to demonstrate they have used scientific methods when developing their opinions.

A Daubert hearing also gives the court the power to judge whether a particular theory is legitimate. This is essential, as it gives jurors insight into what experts will be discussing during testimony.

Furthermore, a Daubert hearing can assist the jury in focusing on the facts of the case. This is especially beneficial when there is an intricate medical issue involved as it gives jurors more clarity as to what they should expect.

Daubert hearings can take place at any point before or during trial, but it is most efficient if expert testimony can be challenged and resolved prior to commencement of the trial. This strategy may be especially advantageous in cases with extended trial timelines.

It is beneficial for a trial court to set case management standards for timely handling of Daubert challenges. Doing so gives parties ample time to respond, avoids protracting the case and reduces costs.

In certain states, courts may even set specific deadlines for a Daubert challenge. This gives parties time to finish their response and address any foundation or predicate issues which could impact their position in the case.

Some political commentators have praised the Daubert decision as a victory, purging courtrooms of so-called “junk science.” Unfortunately, however, it has also created additional problems. With more people aware of its existence, motions to exclude expert testimony have increased exponentially.

Contrary to the Frye standard, which has been around for decades and adopted by most states at some point or another, the Daubert rule has yet to become part of state law. In fact, some states such as Pennsylvania have declined to adopt it.

However, Daubert has had a profound effect on how courts evaluate expert testimony. Its decision has increased the number of motions to exclude experts, leading to greater challenges to their credibility as witnesses.