Bite Mark Evidence: The Pseudoscience That Sent Innocent Men to Death Row

For over 40 years, forensic odontologists took the witness stand in murder trials across America and testified — with the confidence of absolute certainty — that a bite mark found on a victim could be matched to a specific suspect's teeth. Courts believed them. Juries believed them. Innocent people went to prison for it.

THE CLAIM: Forensic bite mark analysis rests on two assumptions: that human skin preserves detailed bite impressions reliably, and that every person's dentition is unique enough to identify them from a bite mark. Neither assumption has ever been scientifically validated.

THE EXONERATIONS:

• Eddie Lee Howard: Convicted 1994, exonerated 2020. Spent 26 years on death row.
• Ray Krone: Convicted of murder in Arizona. Exonerated by DNA in 2002 after 10 years in prison, including time on death row.
• Bennie Starks: Convicted 1986, exonerated 2013 after 26 years.
• At least 24 known wrongful convictions linked to bite mark testimony.

THE SCIENCE — OR LACK OF IT: A landmark 2009 National Academy of Sciences report found that bite mark evidence lacked scientific foundation. A 2016 PCAST report commissioned by President Obama concluded it had "far too great a likelihood of false positives" to be used in court.

Studies have shown that even trained forensic odontologists cannot reliably distinguish between human bite marks and other injuries — or consistently match bite marks to the same suspect twice.

THE RESISTANCE: Despite overwhelming scientific consensus against it, bite mark testimony continues to be admitted in courts in many U.S. states. The American Board of Forensic Odontology has resisted calls to abandon the practice.

Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.

Please like and subscribe for more investigations from The Evidence Log.