Why Bite Mark Evidence Isn't Always Foolproof

If you have been charged with assault and the prosecutor alleges strong bite mark evidence, don't automatically assume you are doomed. Bite mark evidence isn't foolproof, and the right kind of lawyer can help you disapprove it. Here are some of the reasons bite mark evidence isn't foolproof:

Approaches Differ By Experts

One problem with bite mark evidence is that there is no universal agreement among scientists on how the tests should be done. This means every expert witness will approach the test with their own method, which means tests from different experts may yield different results. It also opens the door for the defense to use an expert witness who may get a different result from the plaintiff's result. On top of all that, the different testing platforms confuse judges and juries, leading to inconsistent rulings.

The Skin's Elasticity Leads to Distortions

A bite mark would be a good form of evidence if the skin could perfectly retain all impressions it receives. Unfortunately, this isn't the case because the skin is elastic. This means after a bite mark impression has been left on the skin, further changes in the depth, shape, and size of the marks may occur when the skin changes its shape. The result is that the original impressions may be markedly different from the final ones.

It Involves Only A Few Teeth

Any scientific measurement or test that relies on comparison requires as many points (for comparison) as possible; the more the points you can compare the more accurate your result will be. Ideally, a bite mark test would be best served by comparing all the teeth in the mouth. Unfortunately, the location of human teeth and the shape of the mouth mean that this isn't possible. When you bite someone, only about eight to ten of your teeth are involved, and these are the ones who will be used for comparison. The result is a highly inaccurate test.  

The Uniqueness of Bite Marks Isn't Scientifically Proven

Lastly, you may also have a problem with your bite mark evidence because there is no conclusive scientific proof of its accuracy. In fact, there is "scientific evidence" both proving and disapproving the accuracy of this test; this makes it difficult for juries and judges to know what to believe.

You can still be convicted with or without a bite mark evidence so do not assume that you are safe if it is the main evidence against you. You still need the assistance of a criminal defense lawyer to help you win the case. For more information, contact companies like Lowry Law Firm.

Share