Forensic Dentistry, Second Edition

392 Forensic dentistry

of probabilities or without any declaration that the body was in fact the
victim to the exclusion of all other individuals in the world.^11 In another
Alabama case^12 later affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court,^13 a forensic
dentist in a difficult identification case based upon comparison to ante-
mortem photographs, the expert was admitted to testify based on his
training, skill, and experience.^10
In the Florida case, Tompkins v. Singletary,^14 a nd l at e r a ffi r me d on app e a l,^15
a dental identification using casts, records, x-rays, and an unusual dental
feature cited by the forensic dentist was sufficient to establish the identity.
The California case People v. Mayens^16 confirms the business record foun-
dation for admission of dental records used in identifications. A New York
case affirmed the granting of an order to exhume cremains and deliver them
to Drs. Michael Baden and Lowell Levine for possible dental identification.^17
The admission of the skull of the victim into evidence over the objection of the
defense that it was gross and prejudicial was allowed in Oklahoma. Because
the body was not recovered for over two years, dental identification was the
sole means of positive identification.^18
In Pennsylvania in 1971 a defendant was recognized and identified at a
lineup due to a dental anomaly. The case is particularly interesting because
no dentist was involved.^19 In Nash v. NYC,^20 the court affirmed that due to a
delay in obtaining dental records, during which time the decedent’s uniden-
tified body was buried in “Potter’s Field,” the medical examiner’s office had
no special duty to the family to make the identification in a timely manner.

16.5 Conclusion

Forensic dentistry is both an interesting and serious (sometimes deadly

serious) field of dentistry. The forensic dentist is afforded an opportunity

to interact with individuals and systems outside the normal realm of dental

practice. Both general dentists and dental specialists enter with equal foot-

ing in the field. However, success requires dedication and a willingness to

learn and become comfortable with the legal system, the legal profession, law

enforcement, and the world of the coroner/medical examiner. The forensic

dentist must be dedicated to the pursuit of the truth and must adhere to

the highest ethical standard. A good forensic dentist can, without breach-

ing ethical standards, be a good witness—one that advances the cause of

justice by presenting the truth on the stand and fulfilling the expert’s role

to educate the attorneys, the judge, and the jury about the dental facts at

issue. In today’s legal arena, where some juries have come to expect the

razzle-dazzle spectacle of modern CSI as depicted on television, the dental

expert must be cognizant of the fact that those very same CSI techniques

can disprove expert opinions not soundly grounded in science and fact—as