News Release: Go to next link to read a DAs ridiculous statement saying the DNA from a bitemark injury (vacating a wrong conviction) should NOT be used to “impune the reliability of” an ABFO bitemark expert and his “methods” who helped convict this innocent man in original trial. The DA says “there is no authority” preventing use of the bitemark pattern at a potential new trial. She’s an idiot and not telling the truth to the court. The NAS report in 2009 informed the US Congress that bitemarks are unreliable for matching to a suspects teeth.
Now go the this link. Below on this page is a a previous blob on this case.
When a DA’s case gets reversed based on DNA just call on an ABFO “valid bitemark scientist.”
There is a growing but at the same time ridiculous list of responses by District Attorney’s facing conviction cases kicked back for retrial or release of the wrongfully convicted. Some appellate courts take their science seriously (not in California), and when post conviction DNA from a victim’s body, (in the above Richardson case its a BITEMARK), the DAs (not always) tasked to save the day argue for retrials (obstructing the exoneration) based on the disingenuous hypothesis of a “phantom” accomplice present at the time of the crime. In other words, they ignore crime scene DNA they originally failed to collect and analyze.
Many times the defendant’s request for post conviction testing is held up for years. New legislation in some states have streamlined this process.
These prosecution “theoreticians” use whatever was left over from trial (after the appellate remand) as being sufficient to reconvict “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This is where the convicting dentists are brought back to life to counter the DNA. Few dentists jerked back into this post conviction “penalty box” ever recant or admit over reaching with this unvalidated (NAS 2009) evidence. If anything, they are prone to “double down” on their original statements.
Noticing this common thread is easy, as the LIST of bitemark opinions quashed by DNA has grown to its own unacceptable (not for the ABFO leadership) level in recent years. Description of Bite Mark Exonerations and Arrests