Jennifer Mnookin et al., Forensic Bitemark Identification: Weak Foundations,
Exaggerated Claims, 3 J.L. & Biosciences 538 (2016).
Abstract
Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the
recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies
review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic
Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission ofbitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case
before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This
article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and
the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general
logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting
both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research
does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has
broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic
science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable
and unscientific evidence.
