Two experienced legal commentators take a comparative look at expert witness presenting science in both civil and criminal proceedings. No surprise they pick on the bitemarkers. See the weak criminal courts exercise of pre-trial ‘scientific review’ when the judges are ex-prosecutors. It is all about precedent of the past rather than legit scientific analysis.

“The authors believe that these dynamics are more insidious than questionable individual prosecutorial or judicial behavior in this context. Not only are judges likely to be former
prosecutors, prosecutors are “repeat players” in criminal litigation and, as such, routinely support reduced pretrial protections for defendants.”

Here is a telling reference to the corporal theme of this 17 page article which is linked below.

D. Michael Risinger, Navigating Expert Reliability: Are Criminal Standards of Certainty Being Left on the Dock?, 64 ALB. L. REV. 99, 100 (2000); see also David A. Sklansky & Stephen C. Yeazell,
Comparative Law Without Leaving Home: What Civil Procedure Can Teach Criminal Procedure, and Vice Versa, 94 GEO. L. J. 683, 714–15 (2005) (explaining that “[c]ivil litigators who venture into criminal cases tend to be stunned and often outraged by their inability to depose government witnesses or even to file interrogatories or requests for admissions”). [bold added]

Discovering Forensic Fraud