STORY: "Virginia exoneration underscores mounting challenges to bite-mark evidence," by reporter Spenser S. Hsu. published by the Washington Post on April 8, 2016. (Spencer S. Hsu is an investigative reporter, two-time Pulitzer finalist and national Emmy award nominee.)
GIST: "The exoneration of a former sailor who served 33 years for a 1982 rape and murder in Virginia has highlighted mounting concerns about the use of bite marks as evidence in criminal cases.
Keith Allen Harward,
60, was released Friday from Virginia’s Nottoway Correctional Center,
where he had been serving a life sentence. Harward was convicted after
six experts concurred that bite marks on one victim’s leg matched
Harward to a “medical certainty.” But DNA testing last month proved
those experts wrong — and cleared Harward.........Forensic
odontologists said Harward’s exoneration raises hard questions for a
field whose validity has been undermined by scientific and legal
developments. At least 25 people arrested or convicted on evidence that
included bite marks have been exonerated by DNA, according to the
Innocence Project. Still, no state or federal appellate court has found bite-mark evidence to be inadmissible. The
Innocence Project, part of Harward’s legal team, called such evidence
“grossly unreliable” and urged judges to halt its use in criminal
prosecutions. “How many more Mr. Harwards do we have to find before
courts take seriously the obligation to eliminate this unreliable
evidence from being used when life and liberty are at stake?” said M.
Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation for the project.
“Every state in the nation should be conducting reviews to see if there
are others like Mr. Harward sitting in prison for crimes they didn’t
commit.” In
an interview, Adam Freeman, president of the American Board of Forensic
Odontology, which accredits forensic dentists and sets guidelines,
called the case “very troubling.” He said Harward was convicted using
practices that were “state of the art” at the time. Freeman said
the field has a duty to correct any similar mistakes. “I would encourage
all to review our individual cases,” he said, citing a recent message
to the board’s 90 certified and roughly 30 actively testifying members,
as well as an unknown number of noncertified experts, who consult on
more than 100 cases a year, including capital cases. “We need to take
this responsibility seriously.” Testimony
at Harward’s trial came from one of the field’s leading practitioners,
Lowell J. Levine, then an independent consultant whose involvement in
cases including serial killer Ted Bundy and Nazi war criminal Josef
Mengele established his worldwide reputation. He has served as president
of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and the odontology board. Levine testified to “a very, very, very
high degree of probability those teeth left that bite mark,” referring
to Harward, and said a coincidental match to another person was a
“practical impossibility.” Levine was joined by another
government witness, Virginia dentist Alvin G. Kagey, who independently
examined the evidence and testified “with all medical certainty” that
“there is just not anyone else that would have this unique dentition.” Two
experts contacted by Harward’s trial defense concurred with Kagey and
Levine and were not called to testify, according to limited defense
records maintained by his family. Another two dentists first
ruled out Harward in the investigation while screening dental records of
sailors aboard the ship, but they reversed themselves and corroborated
the match to Newport News police, case records show. In a
statement, Levine said he was upset and disturbed at the result, given
that the case produced wide agreement among examiners who had access to
more information than is often available. “This case should persuade all
my colleagues to agree with the need for more scientific research and
investigation,” Levine said. Harward’s release comes at a time of transition for bite-mark evidence in courts and greater scrutiny of forensic testimony. In
February, the Texas Forensic Science Commission became the first
official state or federal entity to call for a moratorium in the use of
bite-mark identification in criminal trials, saying the validity of the
technique had not been scientifically established. The
odontology board also issued new guidelines that say experts should no
longer make identifications but instead limit testimony to including or
excluding a person as a potential contributor or declaring results
inconclusive. Many prosecutors and practitioners say skilled
examiners exercising proper caution can glean valuable evidence in
cases, including violent crimes where there is a limited pool of
suspects and DNA is less helpful because the perpetrator is known to the
victim, such as in child-abuse cases. “Bite-mark comparisons can
often serve as important corroborative evidence on very complex and
serious cases involving vulnerable victims,” said Joan Vollero,
spokeswoman for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance. Vollero
declined further comment, citing the pending prosecution of Clarence
Dean in the death of an aspiring model in New York in 2007. The office
withdrew bite-mark evidence in January to speed proceedings for
witnesses, the victim’s family and the court in the case, after the
Innocence Project renewed efforts to exclude that evidence. The
Texas commission cited research last year by Freeman’s group that cast
doubt on fundamental assumptions of dental analysis. Freeman’s group
found that board-certified members shown photos from real cases could
not agree, in most instances, even whether injuries were caused by human
teeth."
The entire story can be found at:
The entire story can be found at:
