Good.
The board charged with ensuring that reliable scientific evidence is used in Texas courtrooms agreed on Friday to investigate cases in which bite mark analysis was used to secure a conviction.
“We’re talking about the whole field, the validity of the field of bite marks,” said Dr. Vincent DiMaio, the chief presiding officer at the Texas Forensic Science Commission, and the former Dallas County medical examiner. “The problem justifies an investigation.”
The board voted to review bite mark cases to determine whether faulty evidence resulted in wrongful convictions after a presentation from Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project.
Last year, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences conducted a study of forensic odontologists and concluded that the analysis could not even accurately determine which marks were bite marks. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a report that concluded there was insufficient scientific basis to conclusively match bite marks. Additionally, the Jo Handelsman, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has said that bite mark evidence should be eradicated from courtrooms.
Bite mark evidence, Fabricant said, has contributed to 24 wrongful convictions nationally, including two in Texas.
“Overwhelmingly, it was the chief evidence in those cases,” he said. “Sometimes, it turned out they weren’t bite marks at all.”
[…]
The Innocence Project is urging the commission to institute a moratorium on the use of forensic odontology in criminal cases.
Dr. Nizam Peerwani, a commission member and the chief medical examiner in Tarrant County, said his agency abandoned the practice more than two decades ago. He recalled one instance in which a dentist identified a bite mark that turned out to be an injury from a crow bar.
“We have no respect, absolutely no regard for bite marks,” Peerwani said.
Grits has been on this for years. I’m a lifelong fan of crime fiction, and I know I’ve read more than a few examples of literary detectives using this technique. I’m surprised there are more cases that will need to be reviewed. Anyway, isn’t it amazing how much good work a body like the Forensic Science Commission can get done when people like John Bradley aren’t around to muck things up?
