Bitemark Case Law: The Judicial failure by accepting bitemark experts as “qualified to identify” defendants

Risks to public safety from bad forensic “science” has the US courts system partly responsible. Courts allow over-reaching prosecutors to use these experts in order to convict.

FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

PrintandBook

“Bitemark Identification” acceptance stems from this list of appellate cases starting in 1975 (Marx). This is a short list of the seminal cases (allowing the jury of decide the evidence declared to be science) that flowed from this first appellate decision from California. The glaring inability of the courts to separate these dentists’ mere opinion from science-determined practices is truly the story of how junk science gets into our criminal and civil court system. Many of the dentists listed as experts are/were members of the AAFS/ABFO consortium of forensic “scientists.”

Excerpts from 25 Appeal Court decisions in which appeal of bitemark evidence admissibility was denied.

People v. Marx, 54 Cal. App. 3d 100 – Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 5th Div.

Three dentists testified on behalf of prosecution. One dentist testified on behalf of defendant. The three prosecution experts were: Reidar Sognnaes, a dentist and professor at UCLA…

View original post 4,490 more words

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s