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 …
Bite Mark
Video Shows Controversial Forensic Specialist Michael West Fabricating Bite Marks
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 …
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.
Digital Rectification and Resizing Correction of Photographic Bite Mark EvidenceRead More
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 …