A new appeal filed on behalf of Mississippi death row inmate Eddie Howard, Jr. pre­sent­ed DNA evi­dence that calls into ques­tion bite-mark evi­dence used to con­vict him in 1992. At Howard’s tri­al, Dr. Michael West, a Mississippi den­tist who had tes­ti­fied as a foren­sic expert in numer­ous cas­es, said Howard’s teeth matched bite marks found on the mur­der vic­tim. The vic­tim had been buried for three days and exhumed before West exam­ined her. He said he found three bite marks that matched Howard to a rea­son­able med­ical cer­tain­ty,” but pre­sent­ed no pho­tographs or oth­er evi­dence to sup­port his tes­ti­mo­ny. According to the Innocence Project, at least 17 peo­ple who were con­vict­ed of rape or mur­der based on alleged bite match­es have been exon­er­at­ed since 2000. Dr. West was the expert wit­ness in two of those cas­es. In 2006, the Mississippi Supreme Court refused to recon­sid­er Howard’s case, say­ing, Just because Dr. West has been wrong a lot, does not mean, with­out some­thing more, that he was wrong here.” In 2010, the court grant­ed DNA test­ing of the mur­der weapon and oth­er items from the crime scene. That test­ing, which showed no link to Howard, is the basis for the new appeal.

A report by the National Academy of Sciences said that bite-mark analy­sis could not reli­ably iden­ti­fy one indi­vid­ual, among all oth­ers, as the source of a bite. Dr. West recent­ly agreed that bite marks were not as unique as fin­ger­prints, but he stood by his analy­sis. He said he opposed the death penal­ty because of the risk of error: If you kill them, you can’t undo a mistake.”

(E. Eckholm, Mississippi Death Row Case Faults Bite-Mark Forensics,” New York Times, September 15, 2014). See Innocence and Arbitrariness.

Citation Guide