7.8Bite-Mark Evidence

For a detailed and comprehensive analysis of bite-mark evidence, see 2009 National Academy of Sciences report of the National Research Council’s evaluation of forensic odontology, pp 173-176.¹

“Although the Michigan courts previously found that bite mark evidence had gained general acceptance in the scientific community,” see People v Marsh, 177 Mich App 161 (1989), “the testimony of the most frequently used expert . . . was later discredited both because his testimony lacked foundation and because his mathematical probability testimony [was] flawed, resulting in unfounded opinion testimony,” see Ege v Yukins, 380 F Supp 2d 852, 879 (2005). 1A Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), § 18.230. The Michigan Supreme Court, in two separate cases, reversed and remanded for a new trial the conviction of the defendants because it questioned the value of bite-mark evidence as a means of identification in those cases. See People v Moldowan, 466 Mich 862 (2002) (remanding after the prosecution’s bite-mark analysis experts “either recanted testimony which concluded that bite marks on the victim were made by the defendant or presented opinion evidence which has now been discredited), and People v Wright (Wright I), 461 Mich 906 (1999) (remanding “to the trial court to conduct a Davis-Frye hearing on the matter of [the expert witness’s] testimony regarding the application of statistical probabilities to the comparison between defendant’s dentition and the bite marks on the victim”). After remand and again on appeal from the trial court, the Supreme Court considered the trial court’s findings in Wright I and vacated the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, an outcome to which all parties agreed. People v Wright (Wright II), 463 Mich 993 (2001).