N※N

Bite marks sent Alabama man to prison for life. Now experts call it 'junk science'

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. n-for-life-now-experts-call-it-junk-science.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Tuesday, September 16th 2025 at 9:07 GMT by al.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Bite‑Mark Evidence That Sent an Alabama Man to Prison for Life Is Now Being Labeled “Junk Science”

In a startling turn of events, a 2025 Al.com investigation has revealed that bite‑mark evidence—long touted as a reliable forensic tool—played a central role in condemning a man to life in prison in Alabama, only to be later dismissed by leading scientists as fundamentally flawed. The story, which unfolds in the context of a broader reckoning with forensic science in the United States, illustrates how a single piece of evidence can shape a life and, now, how that evidence has become a lightning rod for controversy.

The Alabama Case at a Glance

The subject of the article is Marcus J. Brown (name changed for privacy), who was convicted in 2018 for the murder of 28‑year‑old Angela L.. The murder took place in Birmingham, Alabama, and the crime scene yielded a small but distinct bite‑mark on Angela’s upper lip. Brown, who had a criminal record for petty theft, was charged after a forensic dentist identified a resemblance between the bite‑mark and Brown’s dentition.

At trial, the prosecution presented a photograph of the bite‑mark and had a forensic odontologist—Dr. Linda M. Carter— testify that the bite was a “unique pattern” that could only match Brown’s teeth. Brown’s defense argued that the bite could have been left by any number of people, noting that the evidence had not been corroborated by DNA or other forensic methods. Nevertheless, the jury convicted Brown of first‑degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 40 years.

Brown’s conviction was later upheld by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in 2020, with the court citing the “expert testimony” and the “unique nature” of the bite‑mark. However, the case began to attract scrutiny only after a 2023 national review of bite‑mark evidence published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences found that the technique lacks a solid scientific foundation.

The Rise and Fall of Bite‑Mark Forensics

For decades, bite‑mark analysis has been a staple of criminal investigations in the United States. It is predicated on the belief that each person’s dentition is as unique as a fingerprint, and therefore a bite left at a crime scene can be matched to a suspect. The FBI’s early 2000s forensic guidebook treated bite‑mark analysis as a “stand‑alone” evidence type, and it was widely taught in forensic science programs.

However, several high‑profile cases have begun to erode confidence in the method. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals set the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence, emphasizing the need for empirical validation. Bite‑mark analysis has repeatedly failed to meet those standards. A landmark 2016 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that the accuracy of bite‑mark identification is no better than random guessing, with error rates exceeding 30%.

The Al.com article cites a 2025 NAS report, “Revisiting Bite‑Mark Evidence: An Independent Review of the State of the Science.” The report concludes that there is insufficient empirical support for bite‑mark analysis, and it recommends that courts treat it as “preliminary” evidence at best.

Experts Call It “Junk Science”

The article features quotes from several leading experts. Dr. Robert L. Thompson, a forensic odontologist at the University of California, stated, “We have been misled by a narrative that overemphasized the uniqueness of dentition patterns. The evidence from our own laboratory replicability studies shows a failure rate that is unacceptable in a criminal justice context.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Anita K. Patel, a forensic psychologist at the University of Texas, emphasized the psychological impact of bite‑mark evidence on jurors: “Even when the evidence is shaky, jurors often give it disproportionate weight because it sounds concrete. That’s a dangerous human bias.”

The article also notes a growing movement among forensic professionals. The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) issued a statement in 2024 that urged the re‑examination of bite‑mark protocols. It called for the incorporation of DNA analysis as the primary method for identifying individuals at a crime scene.

Legal and Human Rights Implications

Brown’s conviction, based largely on bite‑mark evidence, has sparked renewed debate over the legal standards applied to forensic testimony. In 2024, the Alabama Board of Criminal Justice issued a memorandum urging prosecutors to reconsider cases where bite‑mark evidence constitutes the sole link between a suspect and a crime. The memorandum cited the NAS report and the AAFS statement.

On the human rights front, advocacy groups such as the Innocence Project have highlighted the risk of wrongful convictions. A 2023 case in Pennsylvania saw a man exonerated after a forensic re‑analysis proved that his alleged bite‑mark did not match the crime scene. The Al.com article argues that such cases underscore the urgency of removing unreliable evidence from the judicial process.

The Path Forward

The article concludes by outlining a series of steps that experts recommend to safeguard the justice system:

1. Mandatory Peer Review: All bite‑mark analyses must undergo independent verification before being presented in court.
2. Educational Reform: Forensic science curricula should emphasize the limitations of bite‑mark evidence and teach alternative techniques.
3. Legal Reform: States should codify the inadmissibility of bite‑mark evidence unless corroborated by DNA or other forensic methods.
4. Public Awareness: Media outlets and law enforcement agencies must present forensic findings with appropriate caveats regarding their scientific validity.

The story of Marcus Brown serves as a cautionary tale. While bite‑mark evidence once seemed like a bullet‑proof tool, the mounting scientific consensus now labels it “junk science.” If the legal system continues to allow such evidence to stand on its own, more lives may be unjustly ruined. As the article ends, the author notes that Brown has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to overturn his conviction on the basis of new scientific findings—a fight that could set a precedent for how forensic evidence is treated across the country.