Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSaks, Michael J.
dc.contributor.authorAlbright, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorBohan, Thomas L.
dc.contributor.authorBierer, Barbara E.
dc.contributor.authorBowers, C. Michael
dc.contributor.authorBush, Mary A.
dc.contributor.authorBush, Peter J.
dc.contributor.authorCasadevall, Arturo
dc.contributor.authorCole, Simon A.
dc.contributor.authorDenton, M. Bonner
dc.contributor.authorDiamond, Shari Seidman
dc.contributor.authorDioso-Villa, Rachel
dc.contributor.authorEpstein, Jules
dc.contributor.authorFaigman, David
dc.contributor.authorFaigman, Lisa
dc.contributor.authorFienberg, Stephen E.
dc.contributor.authorGarrett, Brandon L.
dc.contributor.authorGiannelli, Paul C.
dc.contributor.authorGreely, Henry T.
dc.contributor.authorImwinkelried, Edward
dc.contributor.authorJamieson, Allan
dc.contributor.authorKafadar, Karen
dc.contributor.authorKassirer, Jerome P.
dc.contributor.authorKoehler, Jonathan ‘Jay’
dc.contributor.authorKorn, David
dc.contributor.authorMnookin, Jennifer
dc.contributor.authorMorrison, Alan B.
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Erin
dc.contributor.authorPeerwani, Nizam
dc.contributor.authorPeterson, Joseph L.
dc.contributor.authorRisinger, D. Michael
dc.contributor.authorSensabaugh, George F.
dc.contributor.authorSpiegelman, Clifford
dc.contributor.authorStern, Hal
dc.contributor.authorThompson, William C.
dc.contributor.authorWayman, James L.
dc.contributor.authorZabell, Sandy
dc.contributor.authorZumwalt, Ross E.
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-02T23:25:32Z
dc.date.available2017-03-02T23:25:32Z
dc.date.issued2016-12-01
dc.identifier.citationForensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims 2016, 3 (3):538 Journal of Law and the Biosciencesen
dc.identifier.issn2053-9711
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jlb/lsw045
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/622734
dc.description.abstractSeveral forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherOXFORD UNIV PRESSen
dc.relation.urlhttps://academic.oup.com/jlb/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsw045en
dc.rights© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.comen
dc.subjectadmissibilityen
dc.subjectbite marken
dc.subjectexpert evidenceen
dc.subjectforensic scienceen
dc.titleForensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claimsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Chemen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Geol Scien
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Law and the Biosciencesen
dc.description.noteOpen access journalen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
refterms.dateFOA2018-06-13T23:00:27Z
html.description.abstractSeveral forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
lsw045.pdf
Size:
1.141Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
FInal Published Version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record