Testimony that connects a bite mark to a specific defendants teeth.
When we don't have high quality latent fingerprints, we see that fingerprint analysis is considerably more prone to cognitive bias, much more likely to have random potential matches, and much more likely to have a higher error rate.
In some ways, DNA evidence also supports this. Furthermore, it is impossible to accurately detect things like bite marks in any situation.
This is why it's so crucial that courts take seriously their role in excluding junk science—things like microscopic hair comparison evidence, bite mark analysis, tyre treads, and Shaken Baby Syndrome cases—as well as their role in excluding an unreliable application of an otherwise reliable technique, which we see a lot.
To know more about DNA, visit:
brainly.com/question/16099437
#SPJ4
