Bite mark evidence is the latest forensic science technique coming under fire, after a New Jersey man’s murder conviction was overturned based on DNA evidence. Gerald Richardson was convicted of a brutal murder in 1995 after a forensic dentist testified that there was no doubt that Richardson’s teeth matched a bite mark on the victim. Last year DNA evidence from saliva in the bite mark proved it was not Richardson who had bitten the victim. Now Richardson, a free man, joins the ranks of 24 others who have been exonerated due to improper analysis of bite marks.
My teeth in plaster by Carmyarmyofme/ (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
This issue is largely due to the subjectivity of interpreting bite marks, which can lead to bias in the courtroom, according to Christopher Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project. Bite mark evidence is one of many disciplines that will be examined by the newly formed National Commission on Forensic Science, which aims to set more unified standards for the legal application of forensic science.
Read more about the National Commission on Forensic Science here.
Read more about bite mark analysis here
