Stop the practice of accepting bitemark evidence in capital cases to substantiate the identity of a suspect. Override judicial precedent; I suggest sooner, rather than later. Every exoneree has their price, you know. Furguson, MO is facing bankruptcy over legal fees associated with mandated review of practices in conforming to known standards.
Solution. Just cease and desist from the practice of admitting bitemark evidence for purposes of “identification” as a whole from this moment forward, albeit conforming to jurisdictional constraints. Serves the forensic dentist right, for not telling the “whole” truth in their “testimony”.
Bite mark work was never meant to be categorized as an identification “science”. The metaphors got mixed, and the judiciary bought into it, that a forensic dentists could analyze an injury in skin, and “assist” the trier of fact, in “understanding” the forensic value of linking bruises in skin to the teeth of a putative suspect (to the exclusion of all others? I don’t thin so…).
Why is this evidence still being admitted into court, you ask? After all, the toll is 24 wrongful convictions. Twenty-four times bitemark evidence has proven to sway a jury erroneously, after subsequent DNA analysis? I’ll tell you why, in my humble opinion, it’s because it plays sexy before a jury. That’s all. Lazy judges admitting evidence based on precedence, instead of doing their jobs as gatekeepers, simply because they fear political reprisal.