ip letter to tfsc

15
Barry C. Scheck, Esq. Peter J. Neufeld, Esq. Directors Maddy delone, Esq. Executive Director Innocence Project 40 Worth Street, Suite 701 New York, NY 10013 Tel 212.364.5340 Fax 212.364.5341 www.innocenceproject.org July 22, 2015 Texas Forensic Science Commission 1700 North Congress Avenue, Suite 445 Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Commissioners: Please accept this complaint, filed on behalf of our client, Steven Mark Chaney, and on behalf of the Innocence Project, Inc. We ask that the Texas Forensic Science Commission ("the Commission") exercise its statutory mandate to investigate and report on "the integrity and reliability" of bite mark evidence as used in criminal proceedings. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann.§ art. 38.01(4)(b-1)(1).1 The Innocence Project is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted persons through DNA testing and improving the criminal justice system to prevent future miscarriages of justice. To date, 330 people in the United States, including 18 who served time on death row, have been exonerated by DNA testing. One lesson to be drawn from these exonerations is that the misapplication of forensic sciences is one of the leading causes of wrongful conviction, contributing to the original wrongful conviction in approximately half of the DNA exoneration cases. Some forensic techniques are more problematic than others, however, and of those disciplines currently in use, it is bite mark comparison evidence that poses the most acute threat to the reliability and fairness of Texas's criminal justice system. Indeed, despite the relative rarity of its application, no less than 24 people have been wrongfully convicted or indicted on the basis of bite mark evidence,2 including at least I Forensic odontology is not specifically enumerated as an accredited field of forensic science. See 37 Tex. Admin. Code§ 28.145. However, it may be treated as a form of impression evidence, see Milam v. State, No. AP-76,379, 2012 WL 1868458, at *12-*13 (Tex. Crim. App. May 23, 2012) (unpublished opinion), which may thus be conducted out of an accredited laboratory, giving the Commission additional jurisdiction. See Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. § art. 38.01(4)(a)(3). 2 See Ex. B (Amanda Lee Myers, Men Wrongly Convicted or Arrested on Bite Evidence, ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 16, 2013, available at http://news.yahoo.com/men-wrongly-convicted-arrested-bite-evidence- 150610286.html); Ex. C (Amanda Lee Myers, Bites Derided as Unreliable in Court, ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 16, 2013, available at http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-bites-derided-unreliable-court- 150004412.html); see also Ex. D (List of Bite Mark Exonerations). Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University

Upload: rjrusak

Post on 16-Aug-2015

1.497 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Innocence Project letter to the Texas Forensic Science Commission requesting moratorium on and investigation of the use of bite mark evidence in courtrooms.

TRANSCRIPT

B ar r y C . S check ,E sq .P eter J . N euf el d,E sq .D i r ector s M addy del one,E sq .E x ecuti v eD i r ectorI nnocenceP r oj ect 40W or thS tr eet,S ui te7 01N ew Y or k ,N Y 1 001 3 T el 21 2. 364. 5340 F ax 21 2. 364. 5341w w w . i nnocencepr oj ect. or g J ul y22, 201 5 T ex as F or ensi cS ci ence C ommi ssi on 1 7 00 N or thC ongr ess Av enue,S ui te 445 Austi n,T ex as7 87 01D ear C ommi ssi oner s: P l easeaccept thi scompl ai nt,f i l ed on behal f ofour cl i ent,S tev en M ar k C haney , andon behal f oftheI nnocence P r oj ect,I nc. W e askthat theT ex as F or ensi cS ci ence C ommi ssi on("theC ommi ssi on")ex er ci se i tsstatutor ymandatetoi nv esti gateand r epor t on"thei ntegr i tyand r el i abi l i ty "ofbi temar k ev i denceas usedi n cr i mi nalpr oceedi ngs.T ex . C r i m.P r oc. C ode Ann. ar t. 38. 01 (4)(b-1 )(1 ). 1T he I nnocence P r oj ecti sa nati onal l i ti gati onand publ i cpol i cy or gani zati on dedi cated toex oner ati ngw r ongf ul l y conv i cted per sonsthr oughD N A testi ngand i mpr ov i ng thecr i mi nalj usti cesy stemto pr ev entf utur e mi scar r i agesofj usti ce. T o date, 330 peopl ei n theUni tedS tates, i ncl udi ng1 8w hoser v ed ti meon deathr ow , hav e been ex oner ated by D N A testi ng. One l esson tobedr aw nf r omtheseex oner ati onsi s that the mi sappl i cati onoff or ensi csci ences i s oneofthel eadi ngcauses ofw r ongf ul conv i cti on, contr i buti ng to theor i gi nal w r ongf ulconv i cti oni nappr ox i matel yhal f oftheD N A ex oner ati oncases. S ome f or ensi c techni q uesar e mor e pr obl emati cthanother s, how ev er , andofthosedi sci pl i nescur r entl yi n use,i ti s bi temar k compar i sonev i dence that poses themostacute thr eat tother el i abi l i ty andf ai r nessofT ex as'scr i mi nalj usti cesy stem.I ndeed, despi te ther el ati v er ar i ty ofi tsappl i cati on,nol ess than24 peopl ehav e been w r ongf ul l y conv i ctedori ndi ctedon thebasi sofbi temar k ev i dence,2 i ncl udi ng at least IF or ensi c odontol ogy i s notspeci f i cal l yenumer atedasan accr edi tedf i el doff or ensi csci ence.See 37T ex .Admi n. C ode 28. 1 45. How ev er ,i t maybetr eatedas a f or mofi mpr essi onev i dence,see Milam v.State, N o.AP -7 6,37 9,201 2W L1 868458, at*1 2-*1 3 (T ex . C r i m.App. M ay23,201 2)(unpubl i shedopi ni on), w hi chmaythusbeconducted outofan accr edi tedl abor ator y ,gi v i ng theC ommi ssi onaddi ti onalj ur i sdi cti on. See T ex . C r i m.P r oc. C ode Ann. ar t. 38. 01 (4)(a)(3).2 See E x .B (Amanda Lee M y er s,MenWrongly Convicted or Arrestedon Bite Evidence, AS S OC I AT E DP RE S S , J une1 6, 201 3,av ai l abl eat http://new s. y ahoo. com/men-w r ongl y -conv i cted-ar r ested-bi te-ev i dence- 1 5061 0286. html ); E x . C (AmandaLee M y er s, Bites Deridedas Unreliable in Court, AS S OC I AT E DP RE S S , J une1 6, 201 3,av ai l abl eat http://new s. y ahoo. com/ap-i mpact-bi tes-der i ded-unr el i abl e-cour t- 1 5000441 2. html ); see also E x . D(Li st ofB i teM ar k E x oner ati ons).B enj ami nN . C ar dozoS chool of Law ,Y eshi v aUni v er si tytw oi nT ex astodate. 3T hat thi stechni q uei s r esponsi bl ef or so many mi scar r i agesofj usti cei s notsur pr i si ng. As thi scompl ai ntoutl i nes, nov al i datedand r el i abl esci ence r emotel y suppor ts bi te mar k ev i dence,andw hatsci ence ther ei s af f i r mati v el y di spr ov es ev en themostbasi cassumpti onsw hi chunder l i ei t. B i te mar k s,mor eov er ,"of tenar e associ ated w i thhi ghl y sensati onal i zedand pr ej udi ci al cases,and ther ecan beagr eat dealofpr essur eon theex ami ni ng ex per ttomatcha bi temar ktoasuspect,"see E x . Aat1 7 5 (N AT I ON AL AC AD E M YOF S C I E N C E S , C ommi tteeonI denti f y i ng theN eedsoftheF or ensi c S ci ences C ommuni ty ,S T RE N GT HE N I N G F ORE N S I CS C I E N C EI N T HEUN I T E DS T AT E S : A P AT H F ORW ARD(2009)("N AS Repor t")). T hi s,al ong w i ththef act thatbi temar kanal y si s i senti r el y subj ecti v e,gr eatl yi ncr easesther i sk ofw r ongf ul conv i cti oni n bi te mar k cases.Gi v en thecompl etel ack ofsci encesuppor ti ng bi temar k anal y si s, and thegr av e r i sk ofw r ongf ul conv i cti on useofthetechni q ueposes,bi te mar k sr epr esentan i deal and cr i ti caloppor tuni ty f orthi sC ommi ssi on tobr i ng tobear i tsstatutor ymandateto "adv ancethei ntegr i tyandr el i abi l i ty off or ensi csci ence"i nT ex as. See T ex . C r i m.P r oc.C ode Ann. ar t. 38. 01 (4)(a-1 ). W e thusaskthatthi sC ommi ssi on under tak ea thor ough i nv esti gati onofbi temar k ev i dence. Ourr eq uesti s thatthi si nv esti gati oni ncl ude r etr ospecti v eand pr ospecti v ecomponents. Retr ospecti v el y ,w easkthatthi sC ommi ssi on audi t thosecases i n w hi chbi temar k compar i son testi mony w asof f er ed. P r ospecti v el y , w e askthi sC ommi ssi ondecl ar e a mor ator i umon theconti nued useofbi temar kcompar i sonev i dence i n cr i mi nalpr osecuti onsunti l such ti meas the techni q uehas been sci enti f i cal l yv al i datedand pr ov enr el i abl e. D oi ngso w i l l notonl y adv ance thi sbody 's statutor ymi ssi on,butal so hel pensur e thatnomor ei nnocentT ex ans ar ei ncar cer atedas a r esul tofthi sdanger ousl yunr el i abl e"sci ence. " Bite Mark AnalysisHasN everBeen Validated or Proven Reliable T he useofbi te mar k compar i sonev i dencei ncr i mi naltr i al sr estsonaser i es ofunpr ov enassumpti ons. F i r st, bi temar k compar i sonev i denceassumes thatthebi ti ng sur f aces ofteeth(i . e. , thedenti ti on)ar e uni q ue. S econd, i tassumes thathumansk i n i s capabl e ofaccur atel yr ecor di ng thedenti ti on'suni q uef eatur es. T hi r d, i tassumes that f or ensi c denti stscan r el i abl y associ ateadenti ti on w i tha bi temar k . F i nal l y ,bi temar kcompar i sonassumes that,gi v enal lthef or egoi ng,f or ensi cdenti stscan pr ov i dea sci enti f i cal l yv al i desti mate as to thepr obati v ev al ueoftheassoci ati on. B ut,as thi sl etterw i l l demonstr ate, nosci ence suppor ts theseassumpti ons,and thusnosci ence suppor ts the concl usi on thata per petr ator can bei denti f i edf r oma bi temar k i n humansk i n.The Dentition Has Never Been Scientifically Demonstrated to beUnique T he f i r st assumpti onofbi temar k compar i sonev i dence i s thatthehumandenti ti on (i . e. , thebi ti ngsur f aces ofteeth)i s uni q ue. B ut thi spr oposi ti onhas nev er been demonstr atedby sci ence tobe v al i dorr el i abl e. I n 2009, the N ati onal Academy ofS ci ences ("N AS ")-anor gani zati onmadeupofthenati on'smostaccompl i shed 3 F ormor eon theex oner ati onsofC al v i n W ashi ngtonandJ oeS i dneyW i l l i ams,and the pr obabl ew r ongf ulconv i cti onsofS tev en M ar k C haney and other si n T ex as, see b i f r a .2 sci enti sts"char ged[by anActof C ongr ess]w i thpr ov i di ngi ndependent,obj ecti v eadv i ce tothenati ononmatter sr el atedtosci enceandtechnol ogy "4-under took thef i r st ex ami nati onby ani ndependentsci enti f i cbody ofbi temar k ev i dence. Af ter near l y f oury ear sofw or k ,i ncl udi ngthor oughl i ter atur er ev i ew sandex tensi v etesti mony f r omav ast ar r ay of sci enti sts,l aw enf or cementof f i ci al s,medi cal ex ami ner s,cr i mel abor ator yof f i ci al s,i nv esti gator s,attor ney s,andl eader sofpr of essi onal andstandar d-setti ng or gani zati ons,theN AS i ssuedi tsgr oundbr eak i ngandauthor i tati v er epor t. W hi l ethe r epor tcr i ti ci zedthesci enti f i cf oundati onf or many f or ensi cdi sci pl i nes,theN AS r eser v ed i tsmostpoi ntedanddev astati ngcr i ti q uef or bi temar k ev i dence,concl udi ngthatthe techni q uel ack ssci enti f i cv al i di ty andhasnev er beenpr ov enr el i abl e.I npar ti cul ar ,theN AS r ej ectedthef i r stassumpti onofbi temar k anal y si sas basel ess,f i ndi ngthat"[t]heuni q uenessofthehumandenti ti onhasnotbeensci enti f i cal l yestabl i shed. "E x . Aat1 7 5- 7 6(N AS Repor t). Recentsci enti f i cr esear chpubl i shed l ar gel y af ter theN AS Repor tsuggeststhatnotonl y hasthi suni q uenessnot been sci enti f i cal l y establ i shed,butthati tcannot be. T hi sr esear chi ndi catesthatthel i mi ted f eatur esofthebi ti ngsur f acesofteeth,w hi char el i k el y toi nv ol v eonl y onenar r owsur f aceof l essthanei ghtteethw i thi nabi temar k (asopposedto32teethw i thf i v esi des f or aty pi cal adul t),may notactual l y beuni q ue. 5I ndeed,thesestudi eshav ef oundther e ar e"matches"betw eendenti ti onsw i thi ncer tai npopul ati ons.6 See E x . E at,r ,r 8,1 4-1 5 (Af f i dav i tofD r . M ar y andP eter B ush("B ushAf f i dav i t"))("Our r esul tsi ndi catethatthe bi ti ngsur f acesofhumananter i or (f r ont)teeth(i . e. ,thedenti ti on)i snotuni q uew i thi n measur ementer r or . T hi si spar ti cul ar l y tr uew i thi nabi temar k ,i nw hi chonl y those anter i or teethmay bei nv ol v ed. ").Even if the DentitionWere Unique. Human Skin Is NotCapable O(Accurately Recording Those Unique Features E v eni fther ew er esci enti f i csuppor tf or thepr oposi ti onthatthedenti ti oni s uni q ue,ther ei snosuppor tf or thepr oposi ti onthathumansk i ni scapabl eof accur atel yr ecor di ngthoseuni q uef eatur es. T heN AS Repor tf oundthatthi sassumpti on,too,w as unsuppor ted,concl udi ngthat"[t]heabi l i ty ofthedenti ti on,i funi q ue,totr ansf er auni q ue patter ntohumansk i nandtheabi l i ty ofthesk i ntomai ntai nthatuni q uenesshasnotbeen sci enti f i cal l y establ i shed. . . . "E x . Aat1 7 5-7 6(N AS Repor t).M or eov er ,asw i ththesupposeduni q uenessofthedenti ti on,anew body ofsci ence-muchofw hi chemer gedaf ter publ i cati onoftheN AS Repor t-suggeststhat thi sabi l i ty w i l l nev er beestabl i shed. T hi speer -r ev i ew edr esear chi ndi catesthatduetoi ts 4 See N ati onal Academy ofS ci ences, av ai l abl eat http://w w w . nasonl i ne. or g/about-nas/mi ssi on/.5 E x .F (B ush M A, B ush P J ,S heets, HD . S tati sti calE v i dencef ortheS i mi l ar i tyoftheHumanD enti ti on.JF or ensi cS ci201 1 ,56(1 ): 1 1 8-1 23 ( obser v i ngsi gni f i cant cor r el ati onsand non-uni f or mdi str i buti onsoftooth posi ti onsas w el l as matches betw eendenti ti ons));E x . G(S heets HD ,B ush P J ,B r zozow sk i C , N aw r ock iLA, HoP ,and B ush M A.D ental S hape M atchRatesi n S el ectedandOr thodonti cal l y T r eatedP opul ati ons i n N ew Y or k S tate: AT w o D i mensi onal S tudy .J F or ensi cS ci201 1 ,56(3): 621 -626(f mdi ng r andomdentalshape matches));E x . H(B ush M A, B ushP J ,S heets HD . S i mi l ar i tyandM atch RatesoftheHuman D enti ti on I n3D i mensi ons:Rel ev ance toB i temar k Anal y si s. I nt J Leg M ed 201 1 ,1 25(6): 7 7 9-7 84(same)).6 See supra/n.5.3 ani sotr opi c,v i scoel asti c,andnon-l i near pr oper ti es,humansk i ncannotaccur atel y r ecor d w hatev er uni q uenessmay bepr esenti nthehumandenti ti on.7SeeE x . E at ~8 (B ush Af f i dav i t). T hi s w or k demonstr atesthatsk i n'snatur al tensi onl i nes and ti ssuemov ement di stor t bi temar k s,of tendr amati cal l y . 8 B i temar k sf r omthesame denti ti onmay appearsubstanti al l ydi f f er entdependi ngon theangl eandmov ementofthebody andw hether the mar kw as madepar al l el orper pendi cul ar totensi onor Langerl i nes.9Other studi es i ndi cate thatsk i n i sso unr el i abl easa medi umthatsi mi l ar l yal i gneddenti ti onsmay cr eate i ndi sti ngui shabl e mar k s. E v en mor econcer ni ng, thi sr esear chal so r ev eal edthat denti ti onsmay appeartobestmatchmar k stheydid notcreate/'' T hus, cur r ent r esear chstr ongl y suggests that"ev eni fthehumandenti ti onw er e uni q ue. . . humansk i n i s notcapabl e off ai thf ul l y r ecor di ng thatuni q uenessw i th suf f i ci ent f i del i tytoper mi tbi temar k compar i son. "E x . E at~23(B ush Af f i dav i t);see alsoE x . Aat1 7 4 (N ASRepor t)("[B ]i temar k son thesk i n w i l l change ov erti meand can bedi stor ted bytheel asti ci ty ofthesk i n, theunev ennessofthesur f ace bi te,andsw el l i ng and heal i ng. T hese f eatur es may sev er el yl i mi t thev al i di ty off or ensi codontol ogy . ").ForensicDentistsCannotReliablyAssociateADentitionWith ABiteMark T he thi r df al se assumpti onofbi te mar k anal y si si s thatf or ensi c denti stscan r el i abl y associ ate a denti ti onw i tha bi temar k . B utthe N AS f ound that"[t]her ei s no sci ence on ther epr oduci bi l i ty ofthedi f f er ent methodsofanal y si s thatl ead toconcl usi ons about thepr obabi l i ty ofamatch. T hi si ncl udes r epr oduci bi l i ty betw eenex per ts and w i th thesame ex per t ov erti me. "E x . Aat1 7 4 (N ASRepor t). I ndeed, "astandar d f orthe ty pe, q ual i ty ,and number ofi ndi v i dual char acter i sti csr eq ui r ed toi ndi cate thata bi te mar khasr eacheda thr eshol dof ev i denti ar y v al uehasnot beenestabl i shed. "Id.at1 7 6.T hi si s anespeci al l yacute pr obl emi n bi temar k compar i sonbecausethemanner i n w hi ch sk i n heal sordecomposes ov erti mei s not pr edi ctabl e,and ther ef or e ther ei s no methodol ogytoaccount f orthedi stor ti onofthei nj ur ycaused by thesepr ocesses. Asa r esul t,ex per ts attempti ng toassoci ate a par ti cul ar denti ti onw i tha bi temar kmadeon humansk i n can, at best,mak eeducatedguesses.7E x . I (B ush M A,B ush P J ,S heets HD .AS tudyofM ul ti pl eB i temar k sI nf l i ctedi n HumanS k i n by a S i ngl e D enti ti onUsi ngGeometr i cM or phometr i c Anal y si s. F or ensi cS ci ence I nter nati onal 21 1(201 1 )1 -8); E x . J (B ush M A,T hor sr ud K, M i l l er RG,D or i onRB J ,B ushP J . T he Response ofS k i n toAppl i edS tr ess: I nv esti gati on of B i temar k D i stor ti oni n a C adav erM odel . J F or ensi cS ci201 0;55(1 ):7 1 -7 6);E x .K(B ush M A,C ooperHI , D or i onRB J .I nq ui r y i nto theS ci enti f i c B asi sF orB i temar k P r of i l i ngand Ar bi tr ar yD i stor ti onC ompensati on. JF or ensi cS ci201 0;55(4):97 6-983);E x .L(M i l l erRG,B ush P J ,D or i on RB J , B ush M A.Uni q uenessoftheD enti ti onas I mpr essedi n HumanS k i n: AC adav erM odel . J F or ensi cS ci2009;54(4):909-1 4)("M i l l er ,Uni q ueness").8E x . M (B ush M A, M i l l er RG,B ush P J ,D or i on, RB . B i omechani cal F actor si n HumanD er malB i temar k s i n aC adav erM odel . J F or ensi cS ci200954(1 ):1 67 -1 7 6)).9Id 10E. g. , E x .L(M i l l er , Uni q ueness). F or a r eal l i f e ex ampl eofhow w el l ani nnocent per son'sdenti ti on can appeartomatch a bi temar k , see E x .N at p. 46(Ami ci C ur i aeB r i ef ofM i chaelJ . S ak s, T homas Al br i ght, T homasL.B ohan, B ar bar aE .B i er er and34 Other S ci enti sts,S tati sti ci ans andLaw -And-S ci enceS chol ar s and P r acti ti oner sI nS uppor t OftheP eti ti onf or W r i tofHabeasC or pus by W i l l i amJ osephRi char ds ("S ci enti sts'B r i ef ')) andin.fraon thew r ongf ul conv i cti onofRay Kr one.4M or eov er ,w hi l etheAmer i canB oar dofF or ensi cOdontol ogy ("AB F O"), f or ensi codontol ogy 'sonl y boar dcer ti f y i ngbody ,hasi ssued"gui del i nes"f or ar angeofconcl usi onsconcer ni nganassoci ati onbetw eenabi temar k andasuspect,i tsmember s ar enotr eq ui r edtoadoptthesuggestedter mi nol ogy . N or ar ethey pr ov i dedw i thanygui danceondel i neati ngbetw eenthev ar i ousconcl usi ons. M or ei mpor tantl y ,these gui del i nesw er enotar r i v edatsci enti f i cal l y buti nsteadw i thnothi ngmor ethanashow ofhandsofthemember spr esentatameeti ng. See E x . Aat1 7 4 (N ASRepor t)("T he [AB F O] gui del i nes, how ev er ,do noti ndi cate thecr i ter i a necessar y f orusi ngeach method todeter mi ne w hetherthebi te mar k can ber el atedtoa per son'sdenti ti onand w i thw hat degr ee ofpr obabi l i ty . "). As the N AS f ound,"[e]v enw hen usi ng the[AB F O] gui del i nes, di f f er entex per ts pr ov i dew i del y di f f er i ng r esul ts. . . . " Id. Ul ti matel y , the N AS concl uded thatf or ensi codontol ogi stsl ack "thecapaci tyto consi stentl y ,and w i tha hi ghdegr eeofcer tai nty ,demonstr ateaconnecti onbetw een ev i denceand aspeci f i c i ndi v i dual or sour ce. "Id. at7 ; see also id.at1 7 5 ("[T ]he sci enti f i c basi si sinsufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match." (emphasi s added)).Even !(Bite MarksCould Be"Matched. "There Is No Evidence Of The Probative Value O(ThatAssociation E v eni fther ew er esci ence tosuppor t thenoti onthatanassoci ati oncoul d r el i abl ybemadebetw eenadenti ti onanda bi temar k ,bi temar k anal y si ssti l lf ai l si ni tsf i nalassumpti on-that asci enti f i cal l yv al i desti mate ofthepr obati v ev al ueofthatassoci ati on can be made. B utas theN AS concl uded, ther ei s now aytodeter mi ne thepr obabi l i ty ofa match because"ther ei s noestabl i shedsci ence i ndi cati ngw hat per centageofthe popul ati onor subgr oup ofthepopul ati oncoul dal so hav e pr oduced[a]bi te. "Idat1 7 4; see also E x . E at ,r 28(B ush Af f i dav i t)("[S ]tati sti cal ev i dencef orthel i k el i hoodofa r andommatchi s, as y et,unsuppor tabl e. ").T hi sC ommi ssi on r ecentl ytook acti on r egar di ng pr eci sel ythesame ty peofsci enti f i cal l yi nv al i d testi mony i n casesi nv ol v i ng mi cr oscopi chai r compar i son. Af tertheF B I ack now l edged thati ts hai r ex ami ner s hadbeen mak i ngi mpr operi ndi v i dual i zati oncl ai ms andother w i se ex agger ati ng thepr obati v ev al ueofan associ ati on betw eena k now nandasuspected hai r f ordecades,i t, al ong w i th the N ati onalAssoci ati onofC r i mi nalD ef enseLaw y er sand theI nnocence P r oj ect,under took an unpr ecedented r ev i ew ofthousandsofcases tosear ch f ortesti mony thatw entbey ond the boundsofsci ence.1 1T he F B I al so tr ai nedhundr edsofstate andl ocal ex ami ner s togi v esi mi l ar l yf l aw ed testi mony ,andso theC ommi ssi onhas under tak enacaseaudi t to"deter mi new hether the i ssues i denti f i ed bytheF B I ar e al so pr esenti n thetesti mony pr ov i dedby state, county1 1See, e.g., E x .A at1 60 (N ASRepor t);S pencerHsu,US.Reviewing 27 Death Penalty Convictions for FBI ForensicTestimony Errors, W AS HI N GT ON P OS T ,J ul y 1 7 , 201 3,av ai l abl e at http:!/w w w . w ashi ngtonpost. com/l ocal / cr i me/us-r ev i ew i ng-27 -death-penal ty -conv i cti ons-f or -f bi -f or ensi c- testi mony -er r or s/201 3/07/1 7 /6c7 5a0a4-bd9b-1 1e2-89c9-3be8095f e7 67_stor y . html .5 andmuni ci pal l abor ator i es. "1 2T hi scaseaudi t w i l l consi derw hether 1 )"ther epor tortesti mony contai n[ ed]astatement ofi denti f i cati on";2) "ther epor tortesti monyassi gn[ ed] pr obabi l i ty or stati sti cal w ei ght";3) "ther epor tortesti mony contai n[ ed]anyotherpotenti al l y mi sl eadi ngstatementsori nf er ences. t'':'As theC ommi ssi onhas concl uded,a hai rex ami ner cannotpr ov i deasci enti f i cal l y v al i desti mateofther ar eness or f r eq uency of [an]associ ati on. T heex ami ner 'stesti mony shoul d r ef l ectthef actthathai r compar i soncannotbeusedtomak eaposi ti v e i denti f i cati onof ani ndi v i dual . I nother w or ds,hai r compar i soncan i ndi cate,atthebr oadcl assl ev el ,thatacontr i butor ofak now nsampl e coul dbei ncl udedi napool ofpeopl easapossi bl esour ceofthehai rev i dence. How ev er ,theex ami ner shoul dnotgi v eanopi ni onastothe pr obabi l i ty orthel i k el i hoodofa posi ti v eassoci ati on. 1 4 T hesesame l i mi tati onsappl ytobi temar k ev i dence. See E x .Aat1 7 6 (N ASRepor t).("B i te mar k testi mony hasbeencr i ti ci zed basi cal l y on thesame gr oundsas testi mony byq uesti oned documentex ami ner sand mi cr oscopi chai r ex ami ner s. "). I ndeed, bi temar kev i dence i s ev en mor eci r cumscr i bed,as thedi stor ti ng pr oper ti esofsk i n di scussedabov e mean that bi temar k compar i sonex per tscannotev en v al i dl y mak eanassoci ati on betw een a mar k anda denti ti on.Bite Marks Are Prone toSeriousError Gi v eni ts l ack ofsci enti f i c basi s,i ti s nosur pr i se thatbi temar k compar i son ev i dence i s pr one toser i ous er r or . I ndeed, "er r or r ates by f or ensi cdenti stsar e per haps thehi ghestofanyf or ensi ci denti f i cati onspeci al ty sti l lbei ng pr acti ced. "E x .N at5 (S ci enti sts'B r i ef ). D ev astati ngnewr esear ch hi ghl i ghti ngthesepr of ounder r orr ates, conducted i n par t bytheVi ce P r esi dentoftheAB F O'sow nE x ecuti v eC ommi ttee, has r ecentl ybecome publ i c. T hi sstudy , enti tl edConstructValidity Bitemark Assessments Using the ABFO Bitemark DecisionTree ("C onstr uctVal i di ty S tudy "),demonstr ates that ev en theAB F O'smostex per i enced f or ensi codontol ogi stscannotagr eeon w hether an i nj ur yi s a bi temar k at all, tosaynothi ngofw hether i t w ascaused by a par ti cul ari ndi v i dual .As par toftheC onstr uct Val i di ty S tudy , photogr aphsof1 00 patter nedi nj ur i es w er eshow n to1 03AB F Oboar d-cer ti f i edD i pl omates. T heyw er eask ed todeci de thr ee q uesti ons:f i r st, w hetherther ew assuf f i ci ent ev i dence tor ender anopi ni onon w hetherthe patter nedi nj ur yw asa humanbi temar k ;second, w hether consi stentw i th theAB F O deci si on tr ee, thei nj ur yw as,i ndeed, ahumanbi temar k ,nota humanbi temar k ,or1 2 T ex as F or ensi cS ci ence C ommi ssi on, Statement RegardingTexas Hair Microscopy ReviewTexas Forensic Science Commission, av ai l abl eat http://w w w . f sc. tex as. gov /si tes/def aul t/f i l es/S tatement%20r e%20T ex as%20HM %20Rev i ew %20F i nal %20Dr af t