Dr. Michael Tabor

Expertise: Bitemark

Address

107 Maple Row Boulevard
Hendersonville, TN 37075
Phone: 615-822-3200
Alt Phone: 615-822-3200
Visit Website

Additional Info

Dentist who has done some bitemark work for the Office of the Medical Examiner.
View this page

Dr. Valerie Murrah

Expertise: Bitemark

Address

Diagnositic Sciences and General Dentistry Chair
School of Dentistry, UNC-CH, CB#7450
Chapel Hill, NC
Phone: 919-843-4659, 919-966-0705
Alt Phone: 919-966-2746
Send Email

Additional Info

Training in oral and maxillofacial pathology.
View this page
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
    • Foundations of Forensics
    • Arson
    • Bite Mark
    • Blood & Bodily Fluids
    • Child Abuse Allegations
    • Crime Scene Investigation
    • Death Investigation
    • Detection Dogs
    • Digital Evidence
    • DNA
    • Drug Analysis
    • Drug Recognition Experts
    • Eyewitness ID
    • Fingerprints
    • Firearms
    • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
    • Measurement Uncertainty
    • Mental Health
    • Toxicology
    • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
    • Forensic Consultations
    • Books
    • Cases
    • Featured Articles
    • Legislation
    • Motions and Briefs
      • Discovery Motions
      • Funding for Experts
      • Motions for Appropriate Relief
      • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
      • Motions for Independent Testing
      • Motions to Preserve Evidence
      • Motions to Suppress
      • Analyst Certification Motions
    • Reports & Publications
    • Trainings
    • Websites
    • Forensic Terminology
    • Online Research Tools
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
  • Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Forensic ResourcesNorth Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Header Right

MENUMENU
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
        • Foundations of Forensics
        • Arson
        • Bite Mark
        • Blood & Bodily Fluids
        • Child Abuse Allegations
        • Crime Scene Investigation
        • Death Investigation
        • Detection Dogs
        • Digital Evidence
        • DNA
        • Drug Analysis
        • Drug Recognition Experts
        • Eyewitness ID
        • Fingerprints
        • Firearms
        • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
        • Measurement Uncertainty
        • Mental Health
        • Toxicology
        • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
        • Forensic Consultations
        • Books
        • Cases
        • Featured Articles
        • Legislation
        • Reports & Publications
        • Trainings
        • Websites
        • Forensic Terminology
        • Online Research Tools
        • Motions and Briefs
          • Discovery Motions
          • Funding for Experts
          • Motions for Appropriate Relief
          • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
          • Motions for Independent Testing
          • Motions to Preserve Evidence
          • Motions to Suppress
          • Analyst Certification Motions
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Forensic Disciplines / Bite Mark

Bite Mark

Contents:

  • Reports and Publications
  • Featured Articles
  • Websites
  • Cases
  • Motions and Briefs
  • In the News
  • Experts

THE INNOCENCE PROJECT (IP) is a national litigation and public policy organization based in New York dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. As the DNA exonerations have revealed, the misapplication of forensic science has been a leading cause of wrongful convictions. The newly created Strategic Litigation unit is aimed at, among other things, eliminating junk science from courtrooms nationwide, beginning with bite mark comparison evidence. To that end, IP seeks to partner with an attorney(s) on criminal cases involving bite mark comparison. Attorneys with cases meeting the following criteria should contact IP directly:

  • Bite mark testimony is proffered by the government as evidence identifying the defendant as the source of the bite mark.
  • Pre-trial, trial, appellate or post-conviction cases: The primary interest is assisting with pre-trial Frye/Daubert motions and hearings, but IP will consider bite mark cases in all stages of litigation and may also lend amicus support.
  • Other disciplines, in particular other pattern or impression evidence: Although the initial focus is on bite marks, other novel, unvalidated disciplines will be considered.
  • NOTE: Strategic Litigation will consider cases with or without biological evidence, i.e., non-DNA cases.

Contact: Chris Fabricant, Director of Strategic Litigation, (cfabricant@innocenceproject.org), 40 Worth Street, Suite 701, New York, NY 10013

The information below should be considered with caution given the lack of scientific validity of this discipline. The information is offered to the extent that it is helpful in challenging this scientifically unreliable evidence in court.

Reports and Publications

  • OSAC Registry Approved Standards, NIST

    The Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Evidence (OSAC) develops documentary standards for forensics through a standards developing organization or other consensus-based process that allows for participation and comment from relevant stakeholders. Standards under consideration as well as approved standards are available in the OSAC Registry. Standards are being developed for each forensic discipline.

  • Additional bite mark articles

    The bibliographies (here and here) contain citations to published articles on bite mark analysis. If you need access to these articles, contact Sarah Rackley Olson.

  • Cases Where DNA Revealed that Bite Mark Analysis Led to Wrongful Arrests and Convictions

    Article by the Innocence Project identifying concerns with bite mark analysis and discussing five cases where individuals were convicted based largely on bite mark analysis, only to be proven innocent through DNA years later.

  • American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) Reference Manual

    As of 2016, the ABFO Standards and Guidelines no longer permit conclusions of “exact match” or that a perpetrator made a mark without a doubt. This marks a significant change in the field. The strongest conclusion permissible now is that a person is “not excluded as having made the bitemark.” See p. 94 and 102.

    See pp. 106-118 for bite mark methodology guidelines, including methods to preserve bite mark evidence (p. 107), bite mark analysis guidelines (p. 112), bite mark terminology guidelines (p. 114), and guidelines for investigative and final bite mark reports (p. 117). The American Board of Forensic Odontology has an expert locator service available here.

    Their 2018 Standards are available here. See p. 3-4 for the limitations on permissible conclusions.

  • PCAST Report

    The 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report concluded that “bitemark analysis does not meet scientific standards for foundational validity, and is far from meeting such standards. To the contrary, available scientific evidence strongly suggests that examiners cannot consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark and cannot identify the source of bitemark with reasonable accuracy.” (p. 87)

  • The path forward on bite mark matching – and the rearview mirror

    4-part Washington Post series on the flawed “science” of bite mark analysis

  • National Academy of Sciences Report

    See pp. 173-176 for the National Research Council’s evaluation of forensic odontology. The report finds “there is continuing dispute over the value and scientific validity of comparing and identifying bite marks.” p. 173. The report lists the following concerns:

    • “Bite marks on the skin will change over time”;
    • Bite marks “can be distorted by the elasticity of the skin, the unevenness of the surface bite, and swelling and healing”;
    • “Distortions in photographs and changes over time in the dentition of suspects, may limit the accuracy of the results”;
    • “Different experts provide widely differing results and a high percentage of false positive matches of bite marks using controlled comparison studies”;
    • and concerns about a lack of supporting research, a lack of a central repository of bite marks and patterns, and the potential for examiner bias.
  • Digital Rectification and Resizing Correction of Photographic Bite Mark Evidence

    FBI report on bite mark photographic distortion and corrective measures, using a description of methods used in the analysis of bite mark evidence from a 1973 homicide case that was prosecuted in 2000.

  • Criminal Law – Expert Testimony on Bite Marks

    A law review article on State v. Temple, 302 N.C. 1 (1981) where the NC Supreme Court held that testimony regarding bite marks identification analysis is admissible as long as the trial court can verify the scientific methods used were accurate and reliable. Includes a summary of the case, background, and an analysis of the opinion.

Featured Articles

  • NIST Scientific Foundation Reviews, NIST

    Abstract:
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a scientific research agency that works to advance measurement science, standards, and technology and that has been working to strengthen forensic science methods for almost a century. In recent years, several scientific advisory bodies have expressed the need for scientific foundation reviews of forensic disciplines and identified NIST as an appropriate agency for conducting them.

    The purpose of a scientific foundation review is to identify and document information supporting methods and practices used in forensic analysis and to identify knowledge gaps where they exist. Beginning in fiscal year 2018, Congress appropriated funds for NIST to conduct scientific foundation reviews.

    NIST has begun reviews of DNA mixture interpretation, bitemark analysis, digital evidence, and firearms examination. In addition to providing insights into these specific disciplines, the initial reviews serve as pilot studies which will guide future efforts.

    This document outlines NIST’s approach to conducting scientific foundation reviews, including data sources used, evaluation criteria, and expected outputs.

  • Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims

    Nov. 2016 Journal of Law and Biosciences article.

Websites

  • Forensic Ontology – Bitemark Evidence

    Blog created by David C. Averill, DDS, and past president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology. It includes articles and news reports on the controversial area of bite mark analysis, as well as information about cases where bite mark evidence has played a role.

Cases

  • Eddie Lee Howard, Jr. v. State of Mississippi

    Bite mark case where conviction was reversed based on changes in the science being newly discovered evidence.

  • State of Georgia v. Sheila Denton – Order for New Trial

    2020 Order granting a motion for a new trial based upon advancements in scientific understanding and American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) guidelines that would compel a different expert opinion if the case were tried today. In 2016, the ABFO Standards and Guidelines were changed significantly to no longer allow a conclusion of “exact match” or that a perpetrator made a mark without a doubt. The strongest conclusion permissible now is that a person is “not excluded as having made the bitemark.” 

  • Cases Where DNA Revealed that Bite Mark Analysis Led to Wrongful Arrests and Convictions

    Article by the Innocence Project identifying concerns with bite mark analysis and discussing five cases where individuals were convicted based largely on bite mark analysis, only to be proven innocent through DNA years later.

  • State v. Trogdon

    715 S.E.2d 635, N.C.App., September 20, 2011 (NO. COA10-1344)

    Defendant argued that the forensic odontologist improperly invaded the province of the jury by testifying that the defendant caused the bite mark on the child. The court held that even if the specific assertions that the defendant was the one who made the bite marks were not allowed, the jury still would have heard other evidence with respect to the mark that was not objected to. Therefore, the jury had enough evidence to come to its own conclusion regardless of the assertions of the expert.

  • Criminal Law – Expert Testimony on Bite Marks

    A law review article on State v. Temple, 302 N.C. 1 (1981) where the NC Supreme Court held that testimony regarding bite marks identification analysis is admissible as long as the trial court can verify the scientific methods used were accurate and reliable. Includes a summary of the case, background, and an analysis of the opinion.

Motions and Briefs

  • Innocence Project’s amicus brief

    For a copy of the Innocence Project’s amicus brief in a Frye challenge to the admissibility of bite mark evidence, email Sarah Rackley Olson.

Bite Mark in the News

  • Murder charge dismissed after debunked bite-mark testimony, by Leah Willingham, AP, 1/11/2021
  • Georgia inmate leaves prison after nearly 16 years following order granting new trial, by Bill Rankin, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/9/2020
  • ‘It’s essentially junk:’ $7.5M bite mark settlement underscores national call for better forensic evidence, by Bryan Polcyn, Fox6, 7/19/2019
  • Yet another bite-mark conviction is unraveling, by Radley Balko, The Washington Post, 5/21/2018
  • Reversal of Bite-Mark Murder Conviction Mandates Hard Look at Forensic Evidence, by Connecticut Law Tribune Editorial Board, 3/16/2018
  • Forensic Experts Granted ‘Qualified Immunity’ for 1990s Bite Marks Testimony, by Seth Augenstein, Forensic Magazine, 6/30/2017
  • Another bite mark exoneration: Alfred Swinton released after 19 years in prison, by Radley Balko, The Washington Post, 6/9/2017
  • Bite mark analysis, other forensic techniques under review (VA), by Frank Green, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 2/18/2017
  • Click here for more articles on this topic

Bite Mark Experts

  • Dr. Valerie Murrah, Chapel Hill, NC
  • Dr. Michael Tabor, Hendersonville, TN

Site Footer

The Forensic Resource Counsel provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating scientific evidence issues.
Information provided on this website is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright © 2021 · Office of Indigent Defense Services · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design

Copyright © 2021 Forensic Resources · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme