Texas Commission Recommends Suspending Use of Bite Mark Evidence (1 Viewer)

[whoknew]

Pretty big deal here. There are real questions about the validity of any non-DNA forensic evidence.

And now the Texas Forensic Science Commission (which is quite influential) has recommended no longer using bite mark evidence.

Link

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - An influential Texas scientific panel recommended on Thursday that bite-mark analysis not be admissible as evidence in courts, a decision experts said could lead judicial systems in other states to exclude it too.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission panel recommended a moratorium on bite-mark evidence until there is science to support its admissibility. The decision will go to the full body as early as Friday, where it will likely be approved.

Bite-mark evidence has been used in U.S. courts for decades, most often to identify suspects in murders, sexual assaults and child abuse through marks on the flesh of victims.

But techniques to determine the source of marks are unreliable, and human flesh is not a good source to record the marks, studies presented to the panel showed. In some studies, experts were often divided on whether they were seeing human bite marks, let alone matching them to a specific individual.

"This commission's findings are incredibly significant because no other agency or scientific body has ever opined on the admissibility of bite mark analysis," said Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation for the Innocence Project, which sought the review.

"It has been admissible as evidence for more than 50 years and thousands have been convicted as a result," he said.

Texas has one of the best-funded forensic science commissions in the United States, and its findings are often cited in criminal cases nationwide.

The panel recommended bite-mark analysis be put on hold until there are scientific standards to determine what is a bite mark and proficiency testing of individuals who analyze them.

It also recommended a review of cases where convictions were largely based on bite mark evidence. There was no indication on how many cases that might be.

While bite marks analysis is used less frequently in U.S. courts now due to DNA testing, it is still used in other countries.

"Today is the beginning of the end for the use of bite-mark analysis in courts all over the country," said Peter Bush, a forensic dentistry expert at the University of Buffalo.

But Dr. David Senn, a bite-mark analysis proponent at the Dental School of the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, said the panel's recommendation was off the mark.

"Bite-mark evidence is too important in the investigation of certain situations and in the courtroom to be set aside," he said.

 

[El Floppo]

what's your professional take on it?

as a lay-person, seems like it would be really hard- short of some highly distinct dental irregularities- to be conclusive about bite marks... but wtf do I know.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yes, there's a lot of junk forensic science that is still uncritically accepted in courts. Good to see this movement in Texas, of all places.

 

[RCon]

Burn patterns in arson cases should be next to go.

 

[whoknew]

This is a good article in last month's Texas Monthly about the work Texas's Forensic Science Commission is doing.

One part of the article:

The landmark document, Strengthening Forensic Science, was published in February 2009 and essentially said that with the exception of DNA testing, most forensic sciences had very little hard science backing them up and the findings often came down to the judgment of the analyst. Until Strengthening Forensic Science, most observers thought the system was fine—labs didn’t need to be accredited, analysts didn’t need to be licensed by an independent agency. But the report called for a massive overhaul of how the justice system dealt with forensic science.

--

Here's that 2009 report if anyone is interested.

 

[NCCommish]

About time.

 

[whoknew]

what's your professional take on it?

as a lay-person, seems like it would be really hard- short of some highly distinct dental irregularities- to be conclusive about bite marks... but wtf do I know.

So I'm not a criminal lawyer - I reckon some of the guys who are will have a more expert understanding than mine. But I do follow this closely.

I think, as RHE said, there is A LOT of bad forensic science out there and we are going to look back on this as another dark chapter in our criminal justice system. We should take a hard look at all forensic science and constantly scrutinize it. Because if that evidence is allowed into trial, its HIGHLY convincing. When a jury here's a government scientist testify about bite marks, or arson splatter, or whatever - its extremely influential. And that's dangerous.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This is a good article in last month's Texas Monthly about the work Texas's Forensic Science Commission is doing.

One part of the article:

The landmark document, Strengthening Forensic Science, was published in February 2009 and essentially said that with the exception of DNA testing, most forensic sciences had very little hard science backing them up and the findings often came down to the judgment of the analyst. Until Strengthening Forensic Science, most observers thought the system was fine—labs didn’t need to be accredited, analysts didn’t need to be licensed by an independent agency. But the report called for a massive overhaul of how the justice system dealt with forensic science.

--

Here's that 2009 report if anyone is interested.

I helped my law professor prepare his presentation to the committee that authored that report and researched the trial transcripts of a bunch of people exonerated by the Innocence Project for a resulting law review article. It was eye opening to say the least.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

what's your professional take on it?

as a lay-person, seems like it would be really hard- short of some highly distinct dental irregularities- to be conclusive about bite marks... but wtf do I know.

So I'm not a criminal lawyer - I reckon some of the guys who are will have a more expert understanding than mine. But I do follow this closely.

I think, as RHE said, there is A LOT of bad forensic science out there and we are going to look back on this as another dark chapter in our criminal justice system. We should take a hard look at all forensic science and constantly scrutinize it. Because if that evidence is allowed into trial, its HIGHLY convincing. When a jury here's a government scientist testify about bite marks, or arson splatter, or whatever - its extremely influential. And that's dangerous.

Its particularly dangerous in the criminal context because the defendants just don't have defense experts. They're hardly funded to have lawyers. Yeah, if you can afford the best counsel, you can also get your own defense expert. But most defendants have absolutely nobody that can challenge those conclusions.

 

[SacramentoBob]

The Texas Forensic Science Commission panel recommended a moratorium on bite-mark evidence until there is science to support its admissibility.

You'd think this would be the standard.

 

[Ursa M]

What? CSI Miami wasn't real? :(

 

[RCon]

The Texas Forensic Science Commission panel recommended a moratorium on bite-mark evidence until there is science to support its admissibility.

You'd think this would be the standard.

When you tell a prosecutor that their job is to maximize convictions rather than justice, they will seek to maximize convictions rather than justice. That's just basic human instinct and self preservation.