STORY: “Another Texas exoneration calls bite mark evidence
into question,” by reporter Michael Hall, published by Texas Monthly on October
20, 2015.
SUB-HEADING: Steven Chaney became the twenty-sixth person to
be wrongly convicted or indicted based on bite mark evidence. The two dental
experts who testified against him have also testifiedin numerous cases - and
they’ve been wrong before.
GIST: “The outcome of Chaney’s case is yet another notable
strike against the controversial practice of using bite marks to secure convictions. For decades, testimony from forensic
dentists – who inspect the injuries of the victims and attempt to match them to
the dental patterns of alleged perpetrators – has been admissible in court.
Often, this testimony is the
prosecutor’s only physical evidenc evidence…A review of old bite mark cases
will almost certainly reveal more false identifications, simply because of the
nature of the way experts thought and testified.”.
The entire story can be found at:
http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/10/22/another-texas-exoneration-calls-bite-mark-evidence-into-question/
See related post on the Law Diva's Blog (Georgialee Lang): "In 1987 Dentist Jim Hales was one of two dentists that testified at
Chaney’s trial that there was a “1 to a million” chance that someone
other than Chaney made the bite marks found on the male victim’s body. The jury, like other juries before and after this trial, relied on
the expert evidence to convict Chaney. It is not uncommon that medical
testimony from seemingly qualified doctors is considered to be
scientifically infallible because of the elevated positions physicians
hold in society. This, despite alibi testimony from nine of Chaney’s
friends who said they saw him the day of the slayings and he couldn’t
have killed the Sweeks. Chaney’s attorney and the New York-based Innocence Project asked
Judge Dominique Collins to overturn their client’s conviction after
prosecutors admitted that bite-mark analysis was unreliable and flawed.
Chaney received a pumpkin pie from the judge who wanted him to enjoy the
taste after eating bland prison food for so long. Steven Chaney is among a group of alleged murderers and rapists whose
convictions were secured by bite-mark evidence. Since 2000 at least 24
men in the United States have been exonerated of heinous crimes after
convictions based on this junk science.........Meanwhile Chris Fabricant, director of litigation with the New York
Innocence Project says “Bite mark evidence is the poster child of
unreliable forensic science.”
https://lawdiva.wordpress.com/tag/steven-mark-chaney/
See the related Innocence Project post:
"The practice of using bite marks to
secure convictions in the court of law is coming under increasing scrutiny
following a series of wrongful convictions based almost entirely on the
unreliable and “controversial” practice, according to an article in Texas Monthly.
https://lawdiva.wordpress.com/tag/steven-mark-chaney/
“The truth is, there was never any
conclusive data or rigorous studies to back up bite mark evidence, which has
been under fire from scientists and defense lawyers ever since it was first
allowed in court in 1974,” says the Austin-based publication, noting that
forensic odontologists—or forensic dentists—“sometimes can’t even agree” on
whether marks found on skin come from teeth or not. The Texas
Monthly’s article on what is regarded as unreliable forensic science by the
Innocence Project and the National Academy of Sciences, comes on the heels of
the release of Steven Mark Chaney—a Dallas man who had his 1987 murder
conviction reversed by a court last week due to discredited bite mark
testimony. Chaney was convicted of the murder of John Sweek based largely on
the testimony of two forensic dentists who claimed that his teeth matched to a
mark on Sweek’s body. As a result, Chaney spent 28 years in prison for a crime
he did not commit. Nevertheless, testimony from forensic
dentists who inspect the injuries of victims and attempt to match them to the
dental patterns of alleged perpetrators has long been admissible in court and
is often the prosecutor’s only physical evidence, reports the Texas Monthly. Jurors are often
confronted with bite mark testimony and the forensic experts who tout it as
full-proof even though a 2009 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences
confirmed that “the scientific basis is insufficient to conclude that bite mark
comparisons can result in a conclusive match.” This discredited practice has
contributed to sending innocent people to prison. According to Texas Monthly, when asked why he voted
to convict Chaney, one juror admitted: “The bite mark.” Beyond Chaney’s wrongful conviction,
however, the article observes that bite mark evidence was also used in Texas’
wrongful convictions of Calvin Washington and Joe Sidney Williams— two
co-defendants in a 1987 rape and murder case—as well as the wrongful conviction
of David Spence in his tragic death penalty case two years earlier. It adds
that in both cases, the effect of the forensic dentist’s testimony on the jury
was “powerful.”
The
practice of using bite marks to secure convictions in the court of law
is coming under increasing scrutiny following a series of wrongful
convictions based almost entirely on the unreliable and “controversial”
practice, according to an article in Texas Monthly.
“The truth is, there was never any conclusive data or rigorous studies to back up bite mark evidence, which has been under fire from scientists and defense lawyers ever since it was first allowed in court in 1974,” says the Austin-based publication, noting that forensic odontologists—or forensic dentists—“sometimes can’t even agree” on whether marks found on skin come from teeth or not.
The Texas Monthly’s article on what is regarded as unreliable forensic science by the Innocence Project and the National Academy of Sciences, comes on the heels of the release of Steven Mark Chaney—a Dallas man who had his 1987 murder conviction reversed by a court last week due to discredited bite mark testimony. Chaney was convicted of the murder of John Sweek based largely on the testimony of two forensic dentists who claimed that his teeth matched to a mark on Sweek’s body. As a result, Chaney spent 28 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Nevertheless, testimony from forensic dentists who inspect the injuries of victims and attempt to match them to the dental patterns of alleged perpetrators has long been admissible in court and is often the prosecutor’s only physical evidence, reports the Texas Monthly. Jurors are often confronted with bite mark testimony and the forensic experts who tout it as full-proof even though a 2009 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that “the scientific basis is insufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.” This discredited practice has contributed to sending innocent people to prison. According to Texas Monthly, when asked why he voted to convict Chaney, one juror admitted: “The bite mark.”
Beyond Chaney’s wrongful conviction, however, the article observes that bite mark evidence was also used in Texas’ wrongful convictions of Calvin Washington and Joe Sidney Williams— two co-defendants in a 1987 rape and murder case—as well as the wrongful conviction of David Spence in his tragic death penalty case two years earlier. It adds that in both cases, the effect of the forensic dentist’s testimony on the jury was “powerful.”
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/bite-mark-testimony-comes-under-fire-yet-again#sthash.GCTrj9oC.dpuf
http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/bite-mark-testimony-comes-under-fire-yet-again“The truth is, there was never any conclusive data or rigorous studies to back up bite mark evidence, which has been under fire from scientists and defense lawyers ever since it was first allowed in court in 1974,” says the Austin-based publication, noting that forensic odontologists—or forensic dentists—“sometimes can’t even agree” on whether marks found on skin come from teeth or not.
The Texas Monthly’s article on what is regarded as unreliable forensic science by the Innocence Project and the National Academy of Sciences, comes on the heels of the release of Steven Mark Chaney—a Dallas man who had his 1987 murder conviction reversed by a court last week due to discredited bite mark testimony. Chaney was convicted of the murder of John Sweek based largely on the testimony of two forensic dentists who claimed that his teeth matched to a mark on Sweek’s body. As a result, Chaney spent 28 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Nevertheless, testimony from forensic dentists who inspect the injuries of victims and attempt to match them to the dental patterns of alleged perpetrators has long been admissible in court and is often the prosecutor’s only physical evidence, reports the Texas Monthly. Jurors are often confronted with bite mark testimony and the forensic experts who tout it as full-proof even though a 2009 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that “the scientific basis is insufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.” This discredited practice has contributed to sending innocent people to prison. According to Texas Monthly, when asked why he voted to convict Chaney, one juror admitted: “The bite mark.”
Beyond Chaney’s wrongful conviction, however, the article observes that bite mark evidence was also used in Texas’ wrongful convictions of Calvin Washington and Joe Sidney Williams— two co-defendants in a 1987 rape and murder case—as well as the wrongful conviction of David Spence in his tragic death penalty case two years earlier. It adds that in both cases, the effect of the forensic dentist’s testimony on the jury was “powerful.”
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/bite-mark-testimony-comes-under-fire-yet-again#sthash.GCTrj9oC.dpuf
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
