Throughout Texas and across the United States, bite mark photos and videos have been entered into countless trials as clear evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant. In many cases, this prosecution presents this evidence as the smoking gun of the trial, and it would be a lie if we said that it didn’t make an impact when juries are involved. However, there has been controversy surrounding bite mark evidence and its effectiveness in court.
DNA and bite marks
One of the most common mistakes that attorneys and everyday people make is believing that a bite mark is the same or as close to a person’s DNA. The reality is that there is currently no scientific proof or research that states that this a concrete fact. One reason bite marks lack merit is that they are often compared to that of a doctor’s bite print when a bite mark on the skin is nothing close to it. The skin swells and bruises, and most people do not hold perfectly still when someone is biting them. Thus, a criminal defense lawyer would be wise to not hinge his or her entire case on a bite mark.
When a lawyer presents bite mark evidence to the court, he or she is likely to have an expert explain it. However, the other attorney may know this is going to happen and present his or her own expert to look at the bite marks. Both experts will likely present different results, and this is another reason why the legal community often does not take bite mark evidence seriously.
When it comes to presenting all the facts, only an experienced lawyer is can determine what holds merit and what does not. Therefore, it is important to obtain a legal team that understands what they are doing and able to present the best case for your legal fight.