308 Forensic dentistryof Maureen Fournier; People (Arizona) v. Krone, 1991 and 1995—murder
of Kimberley Ancona; and People (Mississippi) v. Brewer, 1995—murder of
Christine Jackson.
14.1.1.3 Twenty-First Century
In regard to bitemark cases, forensic odontology in the first decade of the
twenty-first century has been beleaguered by the alarming number of court
cases involving bitemark testimony that have been challenged and reversed.
The legal community, especially individuals and groups that work to prove
the innocence of persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes, has
been instrumental in bringing attention and scrutiny to law enforcement
practices, prosecutorial behavior and misconduct, and forensic identifica-
tion sciences, with bitemark analysis being prominent among them. Most
of the efforts of the innocence groups have centered around the possibility
of the analysis of biological material in or on evidence collected around the
time of the incidents that contained or may have contained DNA. The most
well-known of those cases that include bitemark analysis as a key part of the
investigation, prosecution, and expert testimony are discussed below.
14.1.2 Significant Cases
Lists of “reported” bitemark cases most commonly consist of those that have
been appealed and reviewed by state or national appellate or supreme courts.
Lists of those cases assembled by Pitluck and others currently include cases
in excess of three hundred.^6 The following bitemark cases are considered sig-
nificant because they were either groundbreaking or controversial, or both.
14.1.2.1 Texas v. Doyle, 1954
The first reported case in the United States involving bitemarks was the
appellate case Doyle v. State of Texas, 1954. This case involves bitemarks left
in cheese at the scene of a burglary. This first U.S. case is significant for its
importance when considering the admissibility in a court of law of bitemarks
in food. The fact that it was treated as a pattern or tool mark evidence is
also significant. The primary testimony was given by a firearms examiner
with supporting testimony from a dentist. In addition to this being the first
reported American bitemark case, a significant lesson to be learned from
this case is the manner in which the evidence from the biter was collected.
Mr. Doyle was asked to bite into another piece of cheese, which he did
voluntarily. This then was introduced and compared with the cheese from
the crime scene to link Mr. Doyle to the burglary. It was challenged on appeal
that same year on the grounds that Doyle was not provided his constitu-
tional rights. A court order was not issued for the gathering of incriminating