There is a lot of controversy surrounding bite mark evidence in Connecticut criminal cases. Many people believe that it is unreliable and that it should not be used as evidence in court. There are a number of reasons for this belief.
How bite mark evidence works
Bite mark evidence is usually used to match a suspect’s teeth to marks found on the victim’s body. People often do this by looking at the shape of the teeth, the size of the bite and other factors. Many violent crime cases have been won or lost based on this evidence, but there is a lot of debate about how accurate it really is.
The issue with bite mark evidence
The main problem with bite mark evidence is that it is subjective. What one person might think is a match could be completely different from what another person thinks. This means that there is a lot of room for error and that bite mark evidence should not be the only evidence used in a criminal case.
First, consider that it is often hard to get a clear image of the bite mark. Second, even if you have a good image of the bite mark, it can be difficult to match it up with a specific person’s teeth. Third, criminal defense attorneys have noted that there since there can be a lot of variation in people’s teeth, so even if you have a good match, it might not be conclusive.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, bite mark evidence is often used to convict innocent people. This is because it is very easy to manipulate bite mark evidence to make it look like someone is guilty when they are not. It can be difficult to determine whether or not a person is guilty based on bite marks alone.
If you’ve been accused of a crime and bite mark evidence is being used against you, it’s important to understand the limitations of this evidence. Today, it is possible to challenge and defeat bite mark evidence in court.