Once Bitten, Courts Aren't Shy About Using Bitemark Testimony Again and Again.

This article explores the practice of bitemark comparison in forensic science and its limitations. Bitemark comparison, which involves identifying a biter by comparing their dentition to a bitemark, has been used in courts since the 1970s. However, there are uncertainties and weaknesses in this practice, leading to wrongful convictions. The scientific basis for bitemark comparison is questionable, as human skin is not an ideal medium for recording dentition and the process can introduce distortions. Many scientific review panels have called for the limitation or exclusion of bitemark evidence from criminal trials. The article also discusses the lack of strict criteria for determining the evidentiary value of bitemarks and the variability among examiners in interpreting them. It highlights the need for better standards and gatekeeping in the courts to prevent wrongful convictions. [Extracted from the article]