Frye Argument Supporting Identification from Bite Marks in Forensic Science.edited
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Harvard University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
PSYCHIATRI
Subject
Information Systems
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by PrivateOxide21703
Running Head. Supporting ID from Bite Marks.
1
Frye Argument Supporting Identification from Bite Marks in Forensic Science
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Supporting ID from Bite Marks
2
Frye Argument Supporting Identification from Bite Marks in Forensic Science
Introduction
The current criminal justice system relies heavily on the methods and instruments made
available by forensic science. These methods and technologies help with anything from
identifying suspects to establishing a cause of death to proving guilt or innocence. The
examination of bite marks is one such forensic method. Bite mark analysis entails looking at bite
marks and thinking about who might have left them.
Bite marks have been detected in cases of assault, sexual assault, and murder. The unique
form of human dentition makes bite marks potentially beneficial in establishing a link between a
suspect and a crime scene or victim. Historically, bite marks were considered valid identification
evidence in courts. However, doubts about its integrity and authenticity have grown over time,
sparking discussions about whether or not it should be admitted as evidence. This paper will look
into the science behind bite mark analysis and talk about how it can be used in court. In this
study, we'll examine these questions and decide if bite mark analysis satisfies the Frye criteria for
admissible scientific evidence in court.
Bite Mark Analysis
According to Adserias-Garriga et al. (2018), bite marks are clearly identifiable because
they are a sort of crush abrasion that commonly occurs in conjunction with bruising. They appear
as a pair of inward-curving bruise lines anywhere on the body, although the neck, breasts,
shoulders, and legs are the most usually affected. Bite marks have been discovered on everything
from food to cigars and pipes to musical instruments. Once dental evidence has been discovered,
bite mark analysis can be employed as a valuable forensic technique in a variety of situations.
Evidence can include bite marks in food, a victim biting an attacker, assault and murder cases,
Supporting ID from Bite Marks
3
and even sexual assaults. Although forensic odontology is a newer profession in the criminal
justice system, utilizing teeth to identify a suspect is not. Morgan (2023) recounts the historical
account of Agrippina in 49 A.D., in which the victim's identity was verified through an
inspection of their front teeth.
Bite mark analysis, as well as the dentist's participation in forensics, have evolved
dramatically since 1975. As Adserias-Garriga et al. (2018) point out, even amongst sets of
identical twins, there can be noticeable variances in tooth size, shape, and alignment. Sorup
reported a case in 1924 that marked the beginning of a bite mark study, using transparent paper
models of defendants' dentitions to compare to life-sized images of bite marks. The expression of
negative emotions such as rage, excitement, dominance, or destruction can encourage violent
behaviors such as biting (Bowers, 2004).
To match bite marks with a suspect's dentition, a thorough procedure is required,
including an examination and measurement of tooth size, shape, and position, which has been
accomplished through the use of overlays and other ways. Bowers (2004) observed that
computer-generated overlays provided the most accurate findings due to the complexity of
human dentition, which affords over two billion choices in adult dentition charting. As a result,
because each bite mark is unique to the individual, there is significant evidence for differentiated
analysis in legal scenarios (Gunter, 2023). It's crucial to realize that no two people have the same
teeth due to a variety of factors such as heredity, age, lifestyle choices such as smoking and
drinking, and accidents. Other factors, such as jaw movement and tongue use, contribute to this
singularity.
Bite marks can be caused by dental pressure, tongue pressure, or tooth scraping. Bite
marks are affected by criteria such as time, degree of force, and tooth-tissue movement, whereas
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Supporting ID from Bite Marks
4
tooth pressure marks are caused by direct force application and result in front tooth abrasions.
Unique impressions are left when anything is placed in the mouth and pressed against the teeth
with the tongue. A "tooth scrape" occurs when teeth graze against one another (Kaur et al.,
2013).
The primary goals of bite mark analysis are bite mark identification, thorough
documentation of relevant data, and comparison of bite marks to the suspect's or accused's teeth.
For assessing bite marks, the American Board of Forensic Odontostomatology (ABFO) and the
British Association of Forensic Odontology (BAFO) have identical standards. These guidelines
were created in 1986. The guidelines emphasize the importance of documenting the history of
dental procedures related to the occurrence of bite marks, as well as obtaining extensive
photographic documentation of the oral and facial regions. Biting dynamics can be influenced by
factors outside of the mouth; hence, an intra-oral and extra-oral inspection is required. The
tongue's size and functionality are measured, and saliva samples are collected. When feasible, the
suspect's teeth are imprinted, and a bite sample is taken (ABFO, 2023).
For forensic investigators who specialize in bite marks, the ability to discern between bite
marks and other injuries on the body, such as tooth marks or bruises, is vital. Adserias-Garriga et
al. (2018) recounted an intriguing case in which biting marks on a piece of cheese were
discovered. Cheese bite marks, for example, can be a more trustworthy identity than fingerprints
or facial traits. Bite marks can be compared to dental impressions in numerous ways, including
indentations, chipping, abrasions, tooth width/thickness, and mouth arch. Bite mark analysis is
becoming more precise; however, it is critical to account for elements such as skin, location, and
body position that may distort bite marks. However, as a result of relentless investigation, new
Supporting ID from Bite Marks
5
techniques have arisen, such as retrieving DNA from a suspect's spit and detecting their genetic
makeup using bacteria (Adserias-Garriga et al., 2018).
Fry criteria for admissible evidence.
In the United States, the Frye standard for admitting scientific evidence into court was
established in the case of Frye v. United States in 1923. The Frye standard requires that the
relevant scientific community recognize scientific evidence as a whole before it may be admitted
in court. For many years, this rule was used as a foundation for the admissibility of forensic
evidence in legal processes. However, the legal landscape has changed in recent years, and the
Daubert standard in federal courts and different interpretations of the standard at the state level
have largely supplanted the norm (Office of the Justice Programs, 1923).
Bite mark analysis is locating and comparing imprints of teeth left on skin or other
substances. Forensic evidence based on bite marks has been accepted by the courts as valid and
useful for many years. The accuracy and precision of bite mark analysis, however, have been
called into question in recent decades. Concerns concerning the scientific underpinning and
accuracy of this forensic profession have arisen after a number of examples of wrongful
convictions based on bite mark evidence became public. As a result, the admissibility of bite
mark evidence has been called into question, along with its compatibility with the Frye standard
(Morgan, 2023). One argument in favor of the admissibility of bite mark analysis under the Frye
standard is its roots in fundamental laws of basic physics. Biomechanical and physical principles
are at the heart of bite mark analysis. The bite mark depth, width, and other features can be
evaluated to determine the force and pressure exerted by the teeth while biting another person or
an object. These physical principles are well-established in the scientific community (Adserias-
Garriga et al., 2018).
Supporting ID from Bite Marks
6
Professional forensic odontologists are members of the American Board of Forensic
Odontology (ABFO), which publishes rules and procedures for analyzing bite marks. The
importance of considering the physical aspects that contribute to bite mark formation and
following sound scientific concepts is emphasized throughout these guidelines. In addition, the
application of 3D imaging and computer-aided techniques has improved the accuracy and
reliability of bite mark analysis thanks to the study of forensic odontology. Some experts contend
that the fact that bite mark evidence has been applied incorrectly or misused in the past does not
undermine the scientific basis on which it is based. They argue that bite mark analysis can be
useful in criminal investigations and prosecutions if trained professionals carry it out in
accordance with accepted protocols and standards. Several high-profile instances have left the
scientific community split over the validity and trustworthiness of bite mark analysis. The
reliability of specific forensic procedures, such as bite mark analysis, has been called into doubt
by reports such as "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward," which
was released by the National Academy of Sciences in 2009.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Supporting ID from Bite Marks
7
References
ABFO. (2023).
ABFO :: American Board of Forensic Odontology |
. https://abfo.org/
Adserias-Garriga, J., Thomas, C., Ubelaker, D. H., & C. Zapico, S. (2018). When forensic
odontology met biochemistry: Multidisciplinary approach in forensic human
identification.
Archives of Oral Biology
,
87
, 7–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.12.001
Bowers, C. M. (2004).
Forensic Dental Evidence: An Investigator’s Handbook Second Edition
.
https://booksite.elsevier.com/samplechapters/9780123820006/01~Front_Matter.pdf
Council, N. R. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. In
nap.nationalacademies.org
.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12589/strengthening-forensic-science-in-the-
united-states-a-path-forward
Gunter, P. (2023). The Contribution of Forensic Science to Wrongful Convictions: An Analysis
of Forensic Expert Testimony.
Honors Theses
. https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses/911/
Morgan, J. (2023). Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence.
Journal of Forensic Sciences
,
68
(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15233
Office of the Justice Programs. (1923).
FRYE v. UNITED STATES
.
https://nij.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh171/files/media/document/frye-v-US.pdf