Critics of bite mark comparison cite the case of Ray Krone, an Arizona man convicted of murder on bite mark evidence left on a woman's breast. DNA evidence later implicated another man and Krone was released from prison.
Similarly, Roy Brown was convicted of murder due in part to bite-mark evidence, and freed after DNA testing of the saliva left in the bite wounds matched someone else.
Although bite mark analysis has been used in legal proceedings since 1870, it remains controversial. Researchers have shown that the accuracy of a bite mark on skin is limited at best. Skin is not a good medium for dental impressions; it is liable to have a number of irregularities present before the imprint that could cause distortion.
Also, bite marks can be altered through stretching, movement or a changing environment during and after the actual bite.
Furthermore, the level of distortion tends to increase after the bite mark was made. Both studies suggest that for the bite mark to be accurately analyzed, the body must be examined in exactly the same position it was in when the bite occurred which can be a difficult if not an impossible task to accomplish.
Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful convictions in several states.
IP declares that, since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. IP finds that, in some instances, labs or their personnel have allied themselves with police and prosecutors, rather than prioritizing the search for truth. Other times, IP says, criminalists lacking the requisite knowledge have embellished findings and eluded detection because judges and juries lacked background in the relevant sciences, themselves.
In some cases, critical evidence has been consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover misconduct has proven impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again, preventing the truth from being revealed.
The identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.
The Innocence Project has seen forensic misconduct by scientists, experts and prosecutors lead to wrongful conviction in many states. Here are some of the more notorious:
Of the first 289 convictions overturned by DNA testing, 45% involved faulty forensics. One of those exonerations was Ray Krone. An honorably discharged veteran, Krone served 10 years "in a cell the size of most of y'all's bathroom," he said in Philadelphia, for a murder in Phoenix he did not commit.
An expert for the prosecution had testified that bite marks on the victim matched an impression Krone made for police on a Styrofoam cup. With help from the Innocence Project, DNA evidence cleared him in 2002. "I can't tell you what it was like to be called a monster," he said. "Thank God for DNA."
But many other faults were revealed.
" A former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, Fred Zain, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career, including dozens of cases in West Virginia and Texas. DNA exonerations and new evidence in other cases have shown that Zain fabricated results, lied on the stand about results and willfully omitted evidence from his reports.
" Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in the trials of at least eight defendants who were convicted, then proven innocent years later by DNA testing.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
