Nothing but eyewitness testimony was used to convict Prade of murdering his wife. The court refuses to concede that neither unknown DNA taken from the “bitemark area” nor the pseudo-science of the prosecution’s bitemark expert would be grounds for a new trial. It uses the off-topic reasons listed in OHIO case law that are silent regarding junk forensic identification (the bitemark on skin) used to identify Prade as the killer. The court says new objections to bitemarks are nothing new. What the judges refuse to consider is that new research supports bitemark identification as being a psuedo-science. In TEXAS, this conviction would be held as compelling evidence of prejudice and considered evidence of an unfair trial.