Source: The Watch
by Radley Balko
“Lawyers dealing with bitemark evidence were often in a no-win position in the 1990s. This was the heyday of forensic odontology. Defense attorneys generally chose one of two options: they could either attack the field broadly as unscientific and illegitimate, or they could bring in their own bitemark analyst to counter the state’s witness. In an ideal world, defense attorneys would have attacked the field — because it isn’t legitimate. There is no scientific foundation for the idea that bite marks on human skin can be matched to one person to the exclusion of everyone else. … Once courts started accepting bitemark evidence as legitimate, most defense attorneys decided that it was a waste of time and resources to challenge the field as a whole. So they went for option two: calling their own bitemark analysts to counter state experts.” (09/14/26)
https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-framing-of-chris-duncan-part